All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:23
January 11, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, baby, baby, baby.
Specter really told Kennedy off.
I'm not going to let you run this committee.
I've heard your request and I will consider it.
But you are not going to interrupt this committee and I'm not going to let you run it.
Kennedy's sitting there sheepishly.
And this is all a display for the left-wing fringe and the kooks out there.
Welcome back, folks.
Lots to do here today on the one and only EIB network, El Rushbow.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
We're ditto-camming.
We will be for the entire program today.
There are a couple other items in the news out there, and I intend to touch on a whole bunch of things today.
I hope to get to them.
Here's one that I know we won't hear about anywhere else.
14 months after John Kerry narrowly carried Wisconsin in the 2004 presidential race amidst allegations of voter fraud, five campaign workers for the Kerry Edwards campaign team are set for trial in Milwaukee on felony charges of damage to property.
Remember this story?
The Milwaukee Five charged with slashing 40 tires on 25 separate Republican vehicles on the morning of the 2004 presidential race.
The vehicles were rented by the Wisconsin Republican Party to transport less mobile voters to the polls on Election Day.
In total, the vandals disabled 25% of the get-out-to-vote fleet.
The defendants include Sawande Ajumoke Omokunde, the son of Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat Wisconsin.
Did I pronounce that right?
I don't want to.
Sawande Ajumoke Omokunde.
Not to be confused with what's Frizel Gray's new name?
They got used to running the NAACP.
Kwaeasi Mfume.
Not to be confused with Kwaeasi Mfume.
This is Sawande Ajumoke Okomokunde.
He's the son of Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat Wisconsin.
Also goes by the name of Supreme Solar Allah.
So Sawande Ajumoke Omokunde, also known as the Supreme Solar Allah, Michael Pratt, the son of former Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt, the leader of Kerry's campaign team in Milwaukee, Lewis Caldwell, Lavelle Mohamed, and Justin Howell.
Those are the five.
Now, I just, I haven't seen anything on CNN about this trial.
Trial started Tuesday.
And get this.
A Justice Department investigation into influence peddling on Capitol Hill is focusing on a first tier of lawmakers and staffers, both Republicans and Democrats.
Say sources close to the probe that has netted guilty pleas from Abramoff.
So the first tier, five lawmakers in the first tier of the Abramoff scandal.
You want to hear the names?
Conrad Burns, Montana Republican.
Byron Helmethead Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat.
Dingy Harry Reed, Nevada Democrat.
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican.
Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.
A source working with the Justice Department on the investigation told the Washington Times that Abramoff was questioned during several interviews about the lawmakers and their purported ties to the lobbyist and his former clients.
Others familiar with the investigation confirmed the names of these three Republicans and two Democrat legislators.
So it's a Republican scandal, huh?
Helmethead Dorgan and Dingy Harry among the top tier, the first tier.
And of course, his idiot Howard Dean out there saying the Democrats took no money from Jack Abramoff in the lobbying scandal.
Said this on late edition on CNN on Sunday.
Every person under investigation is a Republican.
Every person indicted is a Republican.
This is a Republican finance scandal.
He's an idiot.
Folks, we have crossed a threshold.
And I mentioned this near the conclusion of the previous hour.
There used to be a guiding principle by which the Democrats could get what they want during such things as these judicial nominations, and it really came to the forefront during the Clarence Thomas hearings.
And I've talked about it before.
You remember the phrase, It's not the nature of the evidence that concerns us.
It's the seriousness of the charge.
And what they meant by that was, screw evidence.
We don't need evidence.
We've got a charge that this man sexually harassed Anita Hill and that there were pubic hairs on a Coke can.
And everybody says, this is absurd.
Then they dragged out DVDs of long, long, long, long, yeah, long, long dong silver and so forth.
And there wasn't any evidence of this.
That doesn't matter.
The seriousness of the charge.
The Democrats used this to investigate George Bush and the October surprise.
There isn't any evidence, Tom Foley said.
We don't have any evidence, but the seriousness of the charge demands that we investigate this.
Well, that's what allowed them to destroy these people.
Now, the threshold that we have crossed is the nature of the evidence trumps it.
The nature of the evidence trumps the seriousness of the charge, and the source of these charges now matters too.
The public doesn't trust these liberal hacks of the media.
They don't blindly accept these charges.
They don't consider that these people making them are automatically correct and trustful, trustworthy, and so forth.
So it's a huge threshold we've crossed.
All right, I've been promising to do this, and here we go.
Three soundbites here of Sam Alito nuking Chucky Schumer on abortion.
Just blows him out of the water here.
Here's the question.
Judge Alito in 85, you wrote that the Constitution, and these are your words, does not protect a right to an abortion.
And you said to Senator Specter a long time ago, I think it was about 9.30 this morning, 9.45, that those words accurately reflected your views at the time.
Now, let me ask you, do they accurately reflect your view today?
It was an accurate statement of my views at the time.
That was in 1985.
And I made it from my vantage point as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, but it was an expression of what I thought at that time.
If the issue were to come before me as a judge, if I'm confirmed, and if this issue were to come up, the first question that would have to be addressed is the question of starry decisis, which I've discussed earlier.
And it's a very important doctrine, and that was the starting point and the ending point of the joint opinion in Casey.
And then if I were to get beyond that, if the court were to get beyond the issue of starry decisis, then I would have to go through the whole judicial decision-making process before reaching a conclusion.
But, sir, I am not asking you about starry decisis.
I'm not asking you about cases.
I'm asking you about this, the United States Constitution.
Answer to the question is that I would address that issue in accordance with the judicial process as I understand it and as I have practiced it.
That's the only way I can answer that question.
So Schumer, bad lawyer that he is, continues waving around the Robert Byrd trademark mini-copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, we don't even know that that's what it really was.
It could have been a matchbook cover.
He's waving it around calling it the Constitution.
And he says, sir, I'm not asking for the process.
Obviously, you would use a judicial mindframe.
You've been a judge for 15 years.
I'm asking you, you stated what you believe the Constitution contained.
You didn't say the Constitution as interpreted by this or that.
You didn't say the Constitution as with this exception or that exception.
It was a statement you made directly.
You made it proudly.
You said you're particularly proud of that personal belief that you had, and you still believe it.
Now, this is where the setup begins.
Because this is where the Libs and their arrogance, they just, if they would just listen to us, they could fix so much of what's wrong with them.
But they're too arrogant to do that.
So he said, you keep talking about what's in the Constitution.
I don't want to know what you think's in the Constitution.
I don't care about your process.
So you still believe that statement, right?
And Senator, I would make up my mind on that question if I got to it.
If I got past the issue of starry decisis after going through the whole process that I've described, I would need to know the case that is before me, and I would have to consider the arguments, and they might be different arguments from the arguments that were available in 1985.
Schumer should have stopped when he thought he was ahead, but of course, arrogance doesn't permit such restraint.
He asked one question too many.
He said, Judge Alito, does the Constitution, and he's waving this thing around, Constitution protect the right to free speech?
Certainly it does.
That's the- Well, why can't you answer the question of does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about starry decisis, without talking about cases, etc.?
Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged.
Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.
Bullseye, folks.
Bullseye.
Schumer painted the target right on his chest and Alito aimed a quiver right there and let fly and bullseye.
How can you, what a stupid question.
How can you say that the Constitution protects the right to free speech but doesn't protect abortion?
Answer, because it says that there's a right to free speech.
It doesn't say there's a right to abortion.
That has to be interpreted.
Bullseye.
President Bush making a speech in Louisville on a wide-ranging area of topics.
And he just said that Iran has made a serious miscalculation resuming their nuclear program.
And you know, President Bush doesn't huff and puff.
They have made a serious calculation, resuming, miscalculation, resuming their nuclear program.
We're working on the audio sound bites of Senator Kennedy arguing with Senator Hatch about subpoenaing the cap records in the Library of Congress and other things.
The media, by the way, checked in during the break.
Media's all excited now because Democrats are doing what they thought they were going to do yesterday.
Made these hearings exciting, and there's controversy now, and it's entertaining.
So the media, the Democrats got the message in the media this morning and last night.
They were too civil yesterday, too polite, and now they're going to be who they really are, as though that will be helpful to the phones to St. Louis.
Hello, Barbara.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
I have a question.
I don't know how these Democrats dare to do what they do.
Chuck Schumer, who I do believe is the chairman of the Senatorial Election Committee for the Democrats, has targeted Lieutenant Governor Steele of Maryland, who's a black conservative Republican.
That to me is racism.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
He didn't just target him.
He had a couple of his staff members go procure his credit report and make it public.
They violated his privacy.
They violated his privacy.
That's exactly what I mean, Barbara.
You are on spot.
You are on the ball.
You under.
These people don't get away with this stuff anymore.
His social security number?
Yeah, I think they had a social security number.
They used that to get his credit report.
Yes, they did.
And he is being targeted.
I mean, how can these people say that Alito, who is so far superior to him, they're so disrespectful anyway, but how can they call him a racist and in favor of violating civil rights when every one of these bozos, I mean, I remember Dick Durbin when he was a gopher for Paul Simon, I do believe, and the senator from Illinois.
Yeah, he was a gopher.
He still is a gopher, still trying to dig his way out of the way.
I mean, it is just appalling to me, and I am so glad that you are on the air.
And we never read this.
The post-dispatch is so ridiculous.
We never read any about this in St. Louis.
And USA Today might as well be the New York Times, which is the only other paper that I subscribe to.
It doesn't matter what paper you subscribe to.
They're all going to say the same thing.
It's like I always say, if you miss the New York Times, read the Washington Post.
You missed that, USA Today.
Miss that, Boston Globe, miss that, L.A. Times.
Miss that St. Louis Post to scratch.
Miss that, turn on NBC.
Miss that, turn on CBS.
Miss that, turn on ABC.
Miss that, turn on CNN.
Miss that, turn on MSNBC.
If you miss this program, you have missed it.
You don't get it anywhere else.
Well, at least not first.
But you don't.
And you're exactly right.
And that's why in a burgeoning, growing economy, the journalism business is floundering.
Layoffs, production cutbacks, and all of these other things.
To answer your question, how consumers do the arrogance?
I keep telling you, arrogance, condescension, superiority, and a confidence that the mainstream press is, as you say, not going to hold them accountable to their very own violations of people's privacy and civil rights, such as that they accuse others of engaging in.
Patrick in New Glaris, Wisconsin, you're next, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Occasional dittos.
Where does Alito stand on the I believe it's called the Kilo decision, the eminent domain decision?
I don't know.
Has he been asked about this yet?
What's he said about it?
I heard that Brownback asked about it today.
If you could get a hold of that soundbite, if we could find a way to find out, because that's the important thing to me.
You heard Brownback ask it.
Okay, I'll see if I can find out.
That happened.
I know it happened this morning.
I wasn't, I must tell you, you know, this is, I don't listen to much of these hearings, but it's only when the, you bet, only when the Democrats are questioning that I did.
When the Republicans, you know, I hit the mute button.
It went back to full-focused show prep.
Well, because I know what the Republicans are going to say, and they're going to basically, you know, do whatever they can do to limit whatever damage, if any, has been created by the Democrats.
Do you remember what he said?
He said he couldn't rule.
Okay.
Okay.
He said, this is Mr. Snurdley's report, who was watching it, says that he really couldn't comment specifically on that decision because he doesn't think that that's case law that's finished.
And it may come back.
But we'll get either via transcript, and I'll read it to you or the audio of the way he answered Brownback.
Dave and Cromwell, Connecticut, you're up next on the EIB network.
All right, Russ, thanks for taking my call.
I'm just so thankful the American people can see Alito how good he is and how the Democrats look so awful.
And I'm so glad it's him up there instead of Myers.
Not to take away anything from her, but I'm afraid they would have had her for lunch, like for breakfast yesterday morning.
And this is good to have Alito up there.
And you were right.
You know, we elected Bush, and we want a judge, and there's no reason he should have picked Myers, and now we got who we want.
Well, I think that's a good way to put it.
I don't, the question about Harriet Myers, it's tough to say what would have happened with her up there.
Because if you remember the context, it was the conservatives who were unhappy with Harriet Myers, and the Democrats might have taken the occasion to be nice to her.
If they would have had the brains, and I just don't know that they do, but if they would have had the brains, they could have asked some of the most intricate constitutional questions and exposed her lack of experience that way without having to get into personal stuff like they're doing with Alito.
But could they have restrained themselves from doing that?
I don't know.
But it's a moot point because the nomination of Harriet Myers died and we got Alito instead.
I'm looking here in the stack.
I know I've got it here somewhere.
I may not have put it in the right stack, but there are.
Which one of you guys sent me this today, HR?
Was it you or Brett?
The polling data that says the American public's not concerned about Alito.
They like him.
All right, because there's some polling data that it's not just the story we had yesterday.
This is not even on people's radar screen because they're scandaled out.
They got scandal fatigue against the Democrats.
Everything has been a scandal since 2001 for five years.
We've had nothing but a scandal after scandal, and they're just worn out on it all.
And every Republican is a monster or crooked racist and needs to be dispatched, and it doesn't work.
But it's something else that the polling data shows that the Democrats just haven't made any inroads in this man's likability.
And there's also another thing about Senator Kennedy.
He's shocked.
This is in a Bill Buckley column today.
Senator Kennedy is talking about the massive, massive protest out there that's going on regarding the, and this is not the Buckley column.
Yeah, the public outcry.
Ted Kennedy's going on and on and on, undeterred.
He wants to know why it is that undeterred by the public outcry, the president vows to continue spying on American citizens.
And of course, there is no public outcry.
There is no public outcry.
Democrats are living a lie in that living in a false reality.
There is no public outcry over the NSA spying scandal.
And there's no public outcry over Alito.
There's no public outcry over anything.
They're upset.
There wasn't any public outcry over Abu Grab, for example.
Back in a moment.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Well-known radio raconteur, general all-round good guy, executing assigned host duties flawlessly here on the one and only EIB network.
All right, here are audio sound bites of Senator Kennedy and Judge Alito, and then Senator Kennedy with Arlen Specter and the argument that they have.
This is Kennedy.
Bad, you got this is 8A through 8D, Mike.
You got those?
I love using these inside baseball terms, as the audience knows, 8A through D, because that must mean we've got a bunch of eights.
And that's true.
So when we supplant the original soundbite roster, keeping things in order, it's eight A through D, and then we'll go to the original eight and then the nine.
And how many do we have today?
Let's see, just so you know, we have 17.
We very seldom get through all of the bites that we have, but they're always there.
Here is Senator Kennedy saying, well, this is the getting angry, the first phase of getting angry at Judge Alito.
Last question on this is how long then when you made the promise under oath to the committee that you were going to recuse yourself, and you understand that now to be, in your own interpretation, just to be the initial time, how long did you think that that pledge and promise lasted?
Senator, and Senator, as I said, I can't tell you 15 years later exactly what I thought when I read that question.
It refers to the initial period of service, and looking at it now, it doesn't seem to me that 12 years later is the initial period of service.
Well, my question to you, which I guess I'm not going to get an answer to, is when did it?
Is 10 years?
How about three years?
Well, I don't know exactly what the time limitation would be, but 12 years does seem to me not to be the initial period.
We'll come back.
I'll come back to this because he was able to focus on the time clock there and realize that his time was up.
So later on, Kennedy's reading from a 1983 American prospect essay titled In Defense of Elitism.
And he says this.
The physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding the government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.
Did you read that article?
Finish the last line.
Finish the last line is.
And homosexuals are.
And now, here come women.
If the senator, let me just get two more minutes from my friend.
Just to continue along, I apologize, Judge.
So you people understand what just happened here.
Somebody on Kennedy's staff gave him this stupid thing, a prospect essay, 1983 prospect essay titled In Defense of Elitism, and Kennedy is reading from it, and he doesn't get to the last line.
So that's Dianne Feinstein.
Dianne Feinstein said, finish the last line.
Kenneth, finish the last line.
That's a homosexual.
No, no, no, no.
And now here come women.
If the senator will let me just.
What a bunch of buffoons.
Just leaves out the land prompted by Diane.
And Alito's sitting there saying, I have to put up with this.
All right.
Now, here's the first part of Ted Kennedy pulling his executive session stunt.
He says, Mr. Chairman, if I can have your attention, I think we ought to vote on issuing a subpoena to the custodian of those cap records.
Quite candidly, I view the request if it's really a matter of importance.
You and I see each other all the time.
You've never mentioned it to me.
And I do not ascribe a great deal of weight.
We actually didn't get a letter, but.
You did get a letter, are you saying?
Well, now, wait a minute.
You don't know what I got.
I'm about to.
Yes, I do, Senator, since I sent it.
Well, the sender doesn't necessarily know what the recipient gets, Senator Kennedy.
I've got to receive.
You are not in the position to say what I receive.
If you'll bear with me for just one minute.
I am in a position to say what I sent to you on December 22nd.
So I renew my request.
You're in a position to tell me what you're doing.
I renew my request, Senator, and if I'm going to be denied, then I'd appeal the decision of the chair.
Don't be premature, Senator Kennedy.
I'm not about to make a ruling on this state of the record.
Mr. Chairman, I'd appeal the ruling of the chair on this.
There's been no ruling of the chair.
Folks, these are the guys that are trying to tell you and me who's qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and they're arguing over whether Arlen Specter received a letter that Ted Kennedy says he sent back in December.
Now, what that's about, Kennedy, and he had a press conference during the break, and he went up and he said, I sent that letter.
I sent that letter to Chairman Spector in December 22nd, and I wanted to subpoena those cap records at that point.
I never got a response to that letter.
He's telling me he never received it, but I know I sent it.
There's a little argument here over.
Well, Senator Kennedy, you don't know whether the recipient receives anything.
You can say you sent it, but you don't know what I've received.
Inspector's insisting he never got it.
It's the U.S. Postal Service.
How many of you haven't gotten anything except a bill?
We all get every bill we're supposed to get.
Isn't that magical?
But we never, I mean, a lot of people send me things I don't get, or at least I tell them that.
No, I mean, it happens.
But I mean, just this is just, this is hilarious.
In fact, I want to hear this again.
I just love this so much.
I was laughing, and then I'm going to go right in because there's a second part, the cut 8D, where it continues.
But here is, in fact, let's just play these back-to-back, Mike.
We'll go 8C and then 8D, bam, bam.
Thank you, ma'am, one right after another, okay?
Good.
Okay, here we go.
Quite candidly, I view the request if it's really a matter of importance.
You and I see each other all the time.
You've never mentioned it to me.
And I do not ascribe a great deal of weight.
We actually didn't get a letter, but.
You did get a letter, are you saying?
Well, now, wait a minute.
You don't know what I got.
I'm about to receive.
Yes, I do, Senator, since I sent it.
Well, the sender doesn't recipe.
I don't care if you know what the recipient gets, Senator Kennedy.
I've got to receive.
You are not in the position to say what I receive.
If you'll bear with me for just one minute.
But I am in a position to say what I sent to you on December 22nd.
Well, you're in a position to tell me what you're doing.
I just renew my request, Senator.
And if I'm going to be denied, then I'd appeal the decision of the chair.
Don't be premature, Senator Kennedy.
I'm not about to make a ruling on this state of the record.
Mr. Chairman, I'd appeal the ruling of the chair on this.
There's been no ruling of the chair.
My request is that we go into the executive session for the sole purpose of voting on a subpoena for these records that are held over at the Library of Congress for that purpose and that purpose only.
And if I'm going to be denied that, I'd want to give notice to the chair that you're going to have it again and again and again.
And we're going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution.
I think.
Senator Kennedy, I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again, and again.
And I'm the chairman of this committee, and I have heard your request, and I will consider it.
And I'm not going to have you run this committee and decide when we're going to go into executive session.
Bangs the gavel.
So, here it is.
Here's the...
Imagine the fringe lib kooks are out there.
Oh, they're eating this up, folks.
This is Wheaties time.
They're just out there having the biggest.
They think this is really going to turn the tide.
This is the way they want their guys to behave.
They want them making utter fools of themselves.
And I'm going to tell you something.
For Senator Kennedy to end up making an enemy out of Arlen Specter, that's hard for a liberal Democrat to do.
These guys are on the same page on so much that concerns his nomination, abortion, you name it.
I mean, Spectre, he led off his whole first series of questions solely about Roe versus Wade and abortion, a Casey case, and all that.
And for Kennedy here to challenge the integrity of the chairman of the committee, ah, this is just too good.
The bottom line is, excuse me, that you have Alito sitting there watching all this, and it's great.
It's taking up time.
These guys are showing themselves to be the other nincompoops they are compared to him.
And it is a justice.
It is justice when you have these blowhards pontificating every day of the year about all these horrible things.
Abu Ghrab and the NSA and the violation of personal property and civil liberties and so forth and so on.
To see who these guys really are once the curtain goes up is just a thrill.
Now, I have another observation, folks, especially given these last two soundbites.
According to the Democrats and Dick Durbin's standard and a definition of torture, we could make the case that Samuel Alito is being tortured in these hearings.
He is being forced to sit for three days so far in an uncomfortable position.
He's in a hot room, bad air circulation.
He cannot stand up.
He cannot move around.
He is stuck in that one position.
He's being forced to listen to the rantings and the ravings of mad, out-of-control interrogators like Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, Dick Durbin, who threaten, who cajole, who are trying to humiliate him with terms like racist and homophobe.
They are accusing him of some of the most despicable acts.
Someone who wants to strip search 10-year-old girls and have fun with it.
Someone who wants to deny his fellow citizens basic constitutional rights.
And the poor guy, the prisoner, Sam Alito, is sitting there, unable to move, unable to get up, unable to consult legal representation.
He doesn't have a lawyer with him.
He cannot sit there and consult legal representation.
He doesn't get legal advice.
And furthermore, it is not clear exactly when he might be freed from this torture.
All in all, I would say that Judge Alito is experiencing everything Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy say that we are doing to detainees at Club Gitmel.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, despair, lost causes, and even the good times.
El Rushball from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right, folks, listen to this.
I have news here.
James Risen's book, that big CIA National Security Agency Bombshell Expose, has sold this number of copies in its first week.
8,472 copies.
My two books sold three times that per hour When they were released, 8,472 copies of James Risen's big CIA NSA bombshell expose.
This is according to BookScan, which is an arm of AC Nielsen, which rates television shows.
Now, let's see: 8,472 copies in the first week.
That's probably not as many people as can be found in the newsrooms of the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC.
So, probably not even everybody in the media, the big media has purchased this book.
Well, what happened?
Risen got front-page, front-page play, front-page exposure for two weeks, three weeks leading up to the release of the big expose on the CIA NSA bombshell.
And then, of course, he had an appearance with the perky one, Katie Couric, about whom Michael Barone writes today and something he said, which echoes something I said last week after we played the bite for you.
And I'll get to that in the next hour because it's really crucial because Risen associates himself with this guy, what's his name?
Wilkerson, Lawrence Wilkerson, who used to be Colin Powell's chief of staff, talking about how the president, vice president, Secretary of State engage in a power grab over foreign policy.
Yeah, the elected leaders of the people engaged in a power grab.
They took power away from the State Department and the media.
Risen includes himself in this group of people that provides a centrist break and restraint to keep foreign policy some veering too far to the power grabbers.
Just absurd.
So, front page play, New York Times, media darling, big-time hero, Katie Couric, NBC, book tour going on right now.
8,742 copies.
Sorry, 8,472 copies.
I don't want to shortchange him in the first week, folks.
I mean, this guy needs to talk to Oprah Winfrey and get in her Book of the Month club.
Because as we all know now, Oprah is used to promoting fraud authors.
All right, Kurt in Chicago.
So I got about a minute here, but I wanted to, I can't think of any better way to spend the time than with you.
So welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
You mentioned the strip searching of a 10-year-old girl.
I think you also mentioned the word fun.
That had nothing to do with it.
The line of questioning in that case was that Judge Alito said it was okay to strip search that girl, even though there hadn't been a warrant, because he felt that drug dealers might hide things on there.
And I believe that that goes to the heart of the question of whether he believes the Fourth Amendment applies and whether warrants to search for the same thing.
You're leaving something very crucial out.
He nailed the Democrats on this too, because he went on to say that if we pass a law saying that you can't do this, it's going to lead to even further abuse of children by drug dealers.
And there was a warrant, and there was the argument was over, and I have experience with this.
There was an argument over how wide-reaching the warrant was.
But you're missing the point, Kurt.
I know what the liberals are up to.
You can say all this stuff on the legalese of it.
They are trying to make it appear, which is what I said, that this man is so callous and insensitive and such a sexist that he thinks it's okay to strip search little 10-year-old girls.
It's okay.
No problem.
He didn't find anything wrong with it.
As though it's just, it's okay.
Cops have to do it.
It can be fun.
The strip search was performed by a female cop, by the way.
▲
Export Selection