All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
January 9, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings and welcome back, folks.
It's El Rushball here on the cutting edge of societal evolution on the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The DittoCam's up and running and will be for the entire program today.
For those of you who are members at rushlimbaugh.com, telephone number, if you'd like to join us, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
We got a call earlier.
I think the caller's name was Colin.
And where was he from?
Where was he calling from?
Yeah, Colin from Normal, Illinois.
And you'll forgive me for not being up to speed on this, but his talking point seems to be, I've been researching this here during the top of the hour news break.
He denied being a liberal, and that's fine.
But his talking point is one of the huge liberal talking points that's all over their websites out there today.
And that is, hey, don't tell us that we're going to be the ones responsible for al-Qaeda operating with impunity in this country.
You can still go get a warrant 72 hours after the fact.
This is all over the place, which thus caused me to go look for some other things about that.
That's where I found the requirements here for a FISA application of a warrant for electronic surveillance.
If you want to get one after you've detected whatever you've detected in your electronic surveillance, it's much too long for me to read here.
I'd love to, but it's just the only reason to read it would be to give you an idea of just how cumbersome this is.
It's absolutely absurd.
So what I'm going to do, and found it at PowerLine, the PowerLine blog.
So I'm going to post the relevant parts of the statute at my website.
I just sent it up to the webmaster Coco, and I'll put it up there at rushlimbaugh.com so you can see what would be necessary to legally get a warrant after you have detected via electronic surveillance information that you want to act on because that's their argument.
Well, nothing says that you can't get a warrant.
You got 72 hours after the fact.
You take a look at these requirements and you tell me if 72 hours is enough time.
It's absolutely absurd.
But more importantly than that, folks, the president doesn't need a judge on a secret court authorizing him to do what the Constitution already authorizes him to do.
Not allows him, but authorizes.
Pardon me, and that is a key word.
Authorize.
He's the commander-in-chief.
He is authorized to defend and to protect the country.
And he doesn't need some judge, particularly a bunch of judges who may now be leaking like sieves anyway to the media about what's going on in their court.
He doesn't need a judge on a secret court authorizing him to do what the Constitution authorizes him to do.
The court is usurping his power.
And those of you, our good friends on the left, who are encouraging this, are usurping the president's power.
And you would only do this if the president were a Republican and named Bush.
Because Clinton did this and nobody cared about it.
Clinton did far more than this and nobody cared about it on the left.
And San Alito never spoke about any of this.
And yet they're going to try to tie him to other people's words on this and other things.
But these requirements, as you will see when you go to the website, they are incredible.
The liberals make it sound like you just stroll into a judge, file a couple of pages, and off to the races you go with your warrant.
But that's not the case.
Now, as to Ted Kennedy, Mr. Stergley was watching, and Ted Kennedy clearly implied that Judge Alito is racist by claiming he can't find anything in his writings where he has opposed discrimination.
Meaning, he's for discrimination.
That's code.
If you're for discrimination, you are a racist.
You might be interested to know that FDR appointed to the Supreme Court a known member of the KKK and an attorney for the KKK.
His name was Hugo Black.
You didn't know that, Dawn?
FDR appointed to the Supreme Court, and he was confirmed Hugo Black, a known member of the Ku Klux Klan, and he was their lawyer as well.
Senator William Henry King, Democrat Utah, at the time, quote, having been a member of the Klan would not disqualify a man from becoming a member of the Supreme Court.
Senator Marvin Logan, Marvell Logan, sorry, Democrat Kentucky.
While I am quite sure that Justice Black is not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, what we do if he were?
I've never heard of any justice being required to resign because of affiliations with any organization he may have chanced to join.
All these comments and more from the New York Times, September 14th, 1937.
Now they're all over Alito for joining this outfit at Princeton.
The acronym is CAP.
And by the speaking of that, I have mixed emotions about what we did here on this program on Friday because I actually think we might have caused this.
I have the witness list.
Remember I told you all about one of their witnesses, Stephen Dujak?
Stephen Dujak, who has written extensively on the, he's editor of the Environmental Forum magazine, a fellow Princeton University alumnus.
And he was going to testify about a controversial student organization that counted Alito as a member back at Princeton.
Well, Dujak is the guy we told you about on Friday who wrote that eating animals is akin to the Holocaust, that slaughtering animals is akin to the Holocaust.
Well, they've pulled Dujack.
Dujak has now been pulled from the witness list.
A spokesman for Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, who's a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he had been notified of the list change shortly before 7 p.m. on Friday.
Earlier that day, Cornyn's office had circulated a 2003 LA Times editorial in which Dujack compared animals killed for food to victims of the Holocaust.
Whether the editorial factored into the decision to drop Dujack from the witness list was not clear.
Well, I didn't get Cornyn's memo.
I had my own research on this, but I feel bad about this.
We should have kept this guy on the witness list.
We should not have mentioned this.
Can you see this guy showing up to testify, being asked to crucify and cream this cap club that Alito is a member of, and then this guy being asked by Republicans, well, what are your beliefs here and how do they relate to this?
And the guy launches into this whole business about how the Holocaust is no different than what we are doing slaughtering animals and so forth.
Anyway, so this guy has been pulled.
Stephen R. Dujack has been pulled from the Democrat witness list.
Dow just broke 11,000.
The Dow just broke 11,000.
NASDAQ's up 1186.
Wow, look at that.
Dow's up 37 today.
Just broke 11,000.
Boy, it's this economy is horrible, isn't it?
You know, this economy is just rank.
Because I don't care if it hit 11,000.
It's at zero for some Americans, and we know that.
As long as it's at zero for some Americans, it doesn't.
In fact, it's bad that it's at 11,000 because it's still zero for some Americans, and they're being left out.
And this isn't fair.
It isn't just.
And it's proof how Bush and Cheney and Halliburton don't care.
Ted Kennedy's going to write a children's book.
Wonder if there are going to be any pop-ups in it.
Well, I would like to see some pop-ups in this book.
One more thing here before we go to the break, and I wanted to expand on this whole thing of ideological corruption that I mentioned talking to Colin from Normal, Illinois.
I'm not sure if I were a Democrat, I would want Teddy Kennedy out there talking about ethics and morality.
Ted Kennedy was on ABC yesterday, kept referring to the GOP's culture of corruption.
And like James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com, he's got the best retort.
Anytime Kennedy stands up, starts talking about corruption.
He says Mary Joe Copechny was unavailable for comment.
And it's just classic.
I just love it.
Mary Joe Kopeckny unavailable for comment.
So they send Teddy Kennedy out.
Yeah, he's going to write a children's book.
And I don't, this is, this is, it's hayseed time.
It's just, it's tough to keep up with these people.
But as I said, they can talk about a culture of corruption in the Republican Party, culture corruption everywhere.
I'll tell you what's corrupted, and that's their ideology.
Liberalism is corrupted.
And that's what's not being discussed, the ideological corruption of liberalism that seems to want America to lose in Iraq, that impedes the war against Islamic terrorism at almost every turn.
Every opportunity the left has to impede the war.
They're doing it.
This whole NSA business is part of an ongoing campaign with these leaks to the New York Times and from the judges and who knows who's doing the leaking, but we're going to find out.
And I'm telling you, it's members of Congress.
We're going to find this out.
They're doing everything we can to sabotage our effort to conduct war against this enemy.
So if anything's corrupted in this country, it's liberalism wanting us to lose in Iraq, impeding the war against Islamic terrorism at every turn, that for decades has pursued policies that led to skyrocketing crime rates and an explosion in welfare dependency.
A movement, liberalism that has consistently sided with education unions instead of American children, especially poor children.
It seems to me, if you're on the fence out there, and if you're going to be selecting a party to govern America, what matters most is the public sense of ideology that informs a particular political party.
And if the liberals are doing anything to recommend them to a vast majority of Americans, I can't see it.
I don't know what it is.
They think they're scoring big with all this.
But the real corruption in this country, the real corruption, has occurred ideologically.
It's with liberalism.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Okay, got some details here on Ted Kennedy's children's book.
Seems like leaking is all over the place in Washington, and some illustrations and captions have been leaked to me.
Still no word of whether there are any pop-ups in this book.
But according to the release on the book, Ted Kennedy and his Portuguese water dog named Splash, Portuguese water dog, is his protagonist in My Senator and Me, a Dog's Eye View of Washington, D.C.
And there's some photo illustrations here, and we've got, well, for example, here's a picture with the captions by Slash.
Slash does the captions to the illustrations and pictures.
One of them said, here's my boss at lunch.
He's the one on top of the waitress.
Here's my boss relaxing with his pants at half-mast at Hyannisport.
And here's Teddy, my master in Florida.
I'm not the only one on all fours.
This was taken outside Obar back in the early 90s.
Just a couple of little leaks on what's coming from Senator Kennedy's book.
Baghdad gunman kidnapped a female American journalist and killed her Iraqi translator Saturday in western Baghdad, according to an Interior Ministry official.
Major Falal Mohammedawi said the translator told the police before he died that the abduction took place when he and the journalist were heading to meet Adnan El-Dalami, head of the Sunni Arab-Iraqi Accordance Front in the Adel section of the city.
Woman's name was not immediately released.
The Telegraph in London described her as a freelancer in her mid-20s.
An American journalist is missing.
We are investigating, said U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Elizabeth Colton, who declined to name her, according to the French news agency.
Now, we did an update on this last Friday.
Well, we did it on Thursday.
It ran Friday.
And this is after we had heard the report that there have been 21 mine deaths, minor deaths in America this year.
The fact is, and nobody talks about it, that many more journalists have been killed this year than minors.
And nobody talks about the dangers and the safety problems that exist in journalism.
And after all, these journalists work for cold-hearted and cruel corporations.
They send them.
These people are not prepared to do anything.
Did you realize these people wouldn't know how to put on body armor?
These people barely couldn't hammer a nail.
They've come out of, they use their hands on computers and cameras and so forth, but they're not prepared for the hardships of life.
And then despite all that lack of training, they get dispatched into these dangerous places.
And they meet up with the enemy who they're not taught to recognize who the enemy is in these situations.
In fact, oftentimes journalists think that the enemy is actually the good guys as a result of their training.
And so they approach the enemy with open arms, thinking they're approaching a friend, and bam, they get captured and maybe later beheaded and killed and gunned down.
And nobody cares.
Nobody talks about it.
I know we have the Committee for the Society to Protect Journalists, but that's a little trade group.
But we hear all this talk about the lack of safety for minors when, in fact, many more journalists die every year than those in American mines.
And I want to point this out to you because we care.
If somebody doesn't point this out, it will continue to go unknown.
Dan in Orlando, Florida.
Welcome to the program search.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hi, good afternoon, Rush.
Former federal agent with extensive experience working cases under FISA.
And it was back during the middle 1980s and when this stuff wasn't on the front page.
Very, very frustrating work.
And a lot of the public just doesn't have a tenth of the understanding of what's involved.
Okay, let me ask you a question right there.
Because as you've been listening, as you probably heard, the latest line from the left is, hey, if electronic surveillance uncovers something, fine, go ahead and act on it.
Then just drop over to FISA.
You've got 72 hours to get a warrant and everything's legal.
Is it that easy?
Well, Rush, it's not that easy.
There's two separate divisions.
One being working a case on the criminal side, another working a case on the FISA side, and the two could never meet.
In other words, anything I was working, I could never go down to an assistant United States attorney to brief them on the case and to try to get a search warrant or an arrest warrant or any kind of wiretap or anything else.
They weren't even authorized to hear my case.
They didn't have the security clearances involved.
Everything that I worked had to be under FISA.
When a case would be opened, it'd be opened as a preliminary investigation, and I could do basic things such as running a license plate number, for example, off a car, things of that nature.
Once I found out a certain amount of information, I had to convince, back at headquarters, a supervisor to allow me to proceed to a full investigation.
During that full investigation, I would have to develop enough facts and information without any kind of sophisticated means in order to develop a FISA application.
Now, that FISA application had to go to my supervisor in the field.
It had to go to the supervisor at headquarters.
And if all those people approved, then it went to a certain person at the Department of Justice.
And by the way, it was a woman at the time, and she had several staff of very junior lawyers right out of law school, just trying to whip the world and really make something out of things and stuff.
And it would be, they would review my affidavit, and I would get some of the most idiotic questions back that would lead me to believe, you know, I may as well have forget it because I have to have the whole case worked.
And why would I even need any kind of sophisticated means to work the case if I already have to have it worked?
You see what I'm saying?
It was a dog chasing its tail.
Right.
And by the time you add electronic surveillance into this one, you don't even know who your subject is.
Well, Rush, let me tell you something.
Every FISA case that I worked, and I worked 30, maybe 35 in my tenure, none of them had a FISA application go out of the Department of Justice to even be presented to the FISA court.
The woman that was there was always fearful of something being turned back or turned away from the FISA court.
So every little thing was nitpicked and so forth.
Now, maybe that was good.
Another thing is, if I had a case that developed that involved a U.S. person, and we had a definition of that.
A U.S. person is not just a naturalized citizen or a born citizen of the U.S. If somebody had a green card, they were considered a U.S. person.
Well, what we saw where a lot of these guys, that was the first thing they tried to do was get a green card.
And then they became a U.S. person.
You were not going to get anything approved.
Don't even ask for it.
Don't even apply.
You know, this is surprising, I'm sure, to a lot of people because most people think federal agents, Jack Buddha thinks, go do whatever they want.
There's nobody's going to rein you guys in or stop you.
That you have free reign to just go entrap anybody at any time you want to.
And I think that's one of the reasons here that we're having such trouble getting people to understand this, is the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of just what kind of power federal agents have.
But anyway, Dan, that's illuminating.
I'm stunned.
Actually, I'm not.
I'm glad you called to actually substantiate all this that we've confirmed ourselves.
We'll be back in just a second.
There you go.
Screams of utter joy at the very mention of my name.
Panic on the part of liberals at the very mention of my name.
By the way, a clarification.
I just want to make sure I didn't mean to misspeak here.
At the time that Hugo Black was appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR, he was a senator.
He was not then a member of the Klan at that time.
He had been.
Sort of like, yeah, sort of like Robert Byrd.
But nevertheless, the Dems put Hugo Black on the court.
They voted for Robert Byrd to be their majority leader, two ex-Klan leaders.
And I think it was 10 years in Black's case.
And what they're trying to do now is apply the writings and statements of others against Alido.
Now, they used to call that McCarthyism, but I think we got a new name for it, Schumerism.
Schumerism as opposed to McCarthyism.
Schumerism is the new McCarthyism.
And that is actually McCarthyism, McCarthyism was accusing somebody who was a communist.
And I never understood the Libs getting so offended.
I thought they loved communists.
But they got offended at that.
McCarthyism has taken over.
It's evolved.
It had a whole new different definition now.
But still, I bring all this up because it was Ted Kennedy who implied that Alito is a racist.
And yet, if you go back, the Democrats have appointed two ex-members, well, one ex-member of the Klan, Hugo Black, to the Supreme Court, and Robert Byrd, an ex-member of the Klan elected to the Senate, was the majority leader for 10 years.
So we just are somehow supposed to forget all of that because history only began in Alito's case today.
Al-Qaeda is recruiting suicide bombers who are infected with the AIDS virus, according to documents revealed to the UK Sunday Mirror.
Terror chiefs also targeting, boy, it's a good thing we didn't learn about that through a wiretap.
No, this was a leak to a newspaper.
Terror chiefs are also targeting fanatics who suffer other lethal blood diseases such as hepatitis and dengue fever in order to increase their kill rate from an explosion.
The chilling new threat is revealed in papers distributed to British military camps in Iraq and across Europe.
Experts have found that bones and other blood-spattered fragments from a suicide bomber could penetrate the skin of a victim 50 meters away and infect them.
Now, do you think this could be true?
Whether it's true or not, you have to consider it because terrorists are all about terror.
They're all about trying to gin up terror.
So that's the latest.
We'll wait for GLAAD and other gay groups to react to this, as I'm sure they will.
Here's David in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
David in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Guess he's not there.
Let's go to Dan in Virginia.
Dan, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, the point I brought up to your screener is that this U.S. persons issue and the maintenance of data on U.S. persons by various elements of the federal government, that is a very, very, very serious matter for those of us who work in law enforcement and intelligence and other fields of work like that.
In fact, it is one of the things that can actually put us directly into jail.
If you are maintaining information on U.S. persons and that broad scope definition that Dan mentioned earlier, it is.
It's exceedingly broad.
And if we get caught maintaining data on U.S. persons that is not justified, and there are also limits of time about how long you can maintain it, and all kinds of restrictions and governing regulations on that data, you can find yourself not only out of a job, but under prosecution.
Now, wait a minute, Dan.
Wait a minute.
That doesn't square with what liberal Democrats are saying that you guys and people like you are spying on Americans all over the place.
And you've got impunity.
You can do it with impunity.
You can spy and Bush authorized it.
You can go do whatever you want.
You can entrap any American doing anything.
The liberals and the ACLU are protecting us against people like you.
I seriously doubt if you can find a small handful of those people who have ever done this job.
They don't know what it entails on the inside.
I will tell you right now that I have to screen my files on a regular basis for information on U.S. persons and have to just, if I have information on U.S. persons, that information, the holding of that information has to be justified.
I have to show activity.
You know what I'm saying?
All that kind of stuff.
Now, I personally don't work in a position where I have to hold information on U.S. persons.
I'm more of a technical guy.
But the fact of the matter is that the entire law enforcement and intelligence communities throughout the U.S., the federal government, and that includes DOD and everybody else, are required to do periodic screenings, and we can have our files searched with or without our notice and stuff like that.
If somebody thinks that we're doing something we shouldn't be or just random searches, those are all, just like every time I log onto my computer, my computer says that my work on there is constant.
My logging onto the computer constitutes consent to monitoring.
And so it's a big deal, Rush.
And it's not something that we in the business that I'm in take lightly by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm sure.
And you understand I was playing devil's advocate with you here.
I understand the sarcasm, Rush.
It's enjoyable most of the time.
Well, the Democrats are making it sound like Bush authorized all this spying and it's being done on a routine basis and that Bush is actually not even interested in catching al-Qaeda.
He just wants to spy on Americans.
And of course, part and parcel of that is how easy it must be.
And your call and the previous call, and plus what I've learned here about the statutory requirements of getting an after-the-fact warrant from a Pfizer court, none of this stuff is easy.
Plus, look at how much material you're dealing with in the first place.
I mean, the real question that people like me have is how much do you miss?
Because there's so much.
How much in the world out there?
If you're mining computer data, electronic surveillance, how much is missed?
Rush, there's only so much that automated tools can do with respect to data mining.
At some point in time, you have to bring in the human mind to look at that.
And that comes down to analysts, guys who are analysts and men and women who are analysts.
And we right now are desperately, desperately short of analysts.
We do not have anywhere near the number of analysts we need to cover the scope and volume of information that's coming in.
And people wonder how things fall through the cracks.
And one other point I'd like to make, and I don't want to take up any more of your time because I know it's valuable, but the reauthorization of this Patriot Act, that has to happen.
It is so very important.
I mean, if that wall goes back up between certain aspects of the federal government where we're not allowed to talk to each other anymore and we can't share data, it's not going to be good.
That's absurd.
It's literally absurd.
After 9-11 happens, everybody gets on the president because we didn't connect the dots.
We couldn't connect the dots because of the Jamie Gorellik wall.
FBI couldn't share data with CIA, vice versa.
Now, all of a sudden, after 9-11, we try to connect the dots and some things.
They accuse the president of spying and they want to impeach him.
They're politicizing the national security of the country.
It's going to come back and bite them in the rear as these things have.
By the way, just saw Dianne Feinstein in her opening statement talking about the Rybar case.
That's why I spent the first half hour of the program today telling you what some of the things the Democrats are going to say about Judge Alito so that you'll be up to speed when you watch excerpts of this stuff later tonight and listen to commentary.
Dan, I appreciate it.
Thanks much for the call.
Here's Tim in Norfolk, Virginia.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, how's it going?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Quick point I wanted to make.
How can the Democrats sit there and castigate President Bush for authorizing these warrantless NSA wiretaps when they, by being members of Congress, they've consented to warrantless searches of virtually unlimited number of people through the federal game system?
Federal game warrants don't require warrants.
They don't require probable cause.
If they even suspect that game violations occurred on your property, they can go onto your property.
They can search anything they want and they can confiscate nearly anything that they believe.
I know.
It's not just in the area you're talking about either.
There are plenty of other instances.
Now, by the way, I don't want to be misunderstood into saying all that stuff is fine.
The point you're making and that I'd like to back up is that the idea this is unprecedented and the president is doing something that's never been done before and isn't done anywhere else in the government is patently absurd.
What makes this so serious is what I referenced earlier, the corruption of liberalism.
They have corrupted themselves to the point that when it all boils down to the bottom line, they find themselves on the same side of the aisle with the enemy when it comes to this enemy and this war.
I'm glad you called Tim.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Broadcast Excellence rolls on in just a minute.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushbo here.
By the way, we keep - you know, it's easy to get seduced when you start talking about the NSA wiretaps and so forth.
The bottom line is, despite all of the threats, the fears, the accusations that the left has made, they haven't been able to trot out one American citizen whose rights have been trampled, have they?
By the Patriot Act or any of this other supposedly illegal surveillance?
And if there were people trotting out folks, they would trot them out.
They'd been up on Capitol Hill already, sitting in on committee hearings.
They haven't trotted one out.
You know, for example, I mean, does anybody know what books Maureen Dowd reads?
With the Patriot Act, we're supposed to be able to find that stuff out just to go to the library and check out the records.
But we don't know what book she reads.
We can only guess what books Pinch Schulzberger reads, How to Run a Newspaper.
But speaking of that, Michael Kinsley has a column.
I'll get to it here in just a second.
I got to do the Joe Paterno story first.
But Kinsley's all upset about the decline of newspapers, black and white and dead all over.
Well, he's no, well, he's, well, I don't know.
They fired him.
He severed relations.
Liberals don't get fired.
They sever relations with the L.A. Times.
I think he still lives in Seattle.
But he has a column for the Washington Post and it ran on Saturday, black and white and dead all over, lamenting the fact that newspapers, black and white, dead all over, are becoming antique pieces.
And of course, you know, the irony in this is the left goes out, they hijack the press, they marginalize it and politicize it to the point of irrelevance, and now they start crying over its impending demise.
They're the ones that are killing it.
So one of Kinsley's ideas is to give newspapers away.
Because besides the price for a newspaper, it doesn't come close to what it costs to produce it.
It's still a big deal.
So if you give the paper away, of course, then you'd have problem telling advertisers what your circulation is.
Ted Kennedy, we have the bite that Mr. Snirtley referred to in which he implied that Judge Alioto, as he refers to him here, was Now, Alioto, there was a, I think it was Sam Alioto, too, was a big, big power broker in San Francisco politics at one time.
But here's the bite where Ted Kennedy implies that Judge Alito is a racist.
To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom.
In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge Aliotto has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job.
In 15 years on the bench, not one.
And when I look at that record in light of the 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, it's even more troubling.
That document lays out an ideological agenda that highlights his pride in belonging to an alumni group at Princeton that opposed the admission of women and proposed to curb the admission of racial minorities.
All right, I dealt with all of this in the first half hour of the program.
First place, Senator, it's Judge Alito.
He's getting his name screwed up the same as he got Barack Obama's name.
Call him Osama Obama.
This man is all, he's lost it.
He's over the hill, literally over the hill.
This is Jurassic Park.
We're watching the Senate Democrats as Jurassic Park.
When these guys all wake up and smile at once, you have to stop and declare at Halloween, like an old folks' home.
At any rate, here's Alito's 85 job application that Senator Kennedy just disparaged as an ideological agenda.
Here's what he wrote.
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, meaning those who are elected, those who are accountable.
Senator Kennedy finds that to be an ideological agenda, and he would.
This is the same type of thinking that went into the founding documents of this republic.
And those founding documents are too confining to liberals like Senator Kennedy, the Constitution, the Declaration.
But this is absolutely absurd that Judge Alioto has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job.
In 15 years on the bench, not so what?
So what?
Notice how the liberals measure someone's compassion.
But these are, again, as I said at the top of the program today, these are issues that no longer are those hard-button issues with the American people that used to send up streams of smoke and sparks of controversy.
They're just not anymore.
That's why I say Jurassic Park.
This is old stuff.
Hey, why can't it's no different saying he's against women's rights?
He's against black rights.
He's against civil rights.
He's against human rights.
He's against...
None of the...
It's absurd.
There is nobody out there who's going to believe this.
The American people now no longer accept the notion that all of these nominees fit the playbook definition the liberals come up with of conservatives.
More often than not, it's the left that are appearing more and more kooky and extreme to the American people each and every day.
I got to take a quick time out here, folks.
Stay where you are.
This thing at Princeton that Teddy Kennedy and the Libj are talking about concerned alumni of Princeton.
Alito was enrolled in the ROTC program in Princeton when Princeton, in the midst of the Cold War, decided to eliminate that program.
The concerned alumni of Princeton opposed that decision and Princeton's later resistance to the ROTC.
Alito's membership of CAP evidently consisted merely of paying dues.
He did not support, go to all the meetings, and all these other wacko things that this group supported.
At least, no evidence of that can be found.
But this is, again, guilt by association.
This is flimsy stuff typical of the left's attempt to smear and destroy this nominee's character, his reputation, and if they can get away with it during this hearing, his life.
▲
Export Selection