All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
January 13, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 podcast.
Well, the Pors mortems are coming in, ladies and gentlemen on the Senate Democrats and their uh their their attempt to um defeat Sam Alito, destroy Sam Alito.
The uh Washington Post and the New York Times are both out with shocking news today, uh, and that is that Alito uh may be in the uh mold of uh Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia's, though they just figured this out.
It's amazing to go through and review the news today, listen to some of the audio, we'll do that and much more because it's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
All right, let's uh let's spell out the rules here for you.
As you know, on open line Friday, this is where I, L. Rushbull, highly trained uh broadcast specialist, seasoned professional, take a mighty career risk.
Monday through Thursday, I am in total control, as in a benevolent dictator over this program and what's on it.
If I don't care about it, we don't talk about it.
Because why why talk about something that bores me?
But on Friday, we allow callers to bring up whatever they want, even if I am not particularly interested in it.
And so that's what Open Line Friday is.
And we'll get to your phone calls as soon as we can.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at eibnet.com.
Did you people see this?
Uh, the Arab news network Al Jazeera announced yesterday, and it seems to me that I heard this news a week or so ago.
I saw it in a blurb as in it might happen, might have been a rumor, but now it has.
Al Jazeera has announced that Dave Marish, an award-winning former correspondent for Nightline, is joining its 24 hour English language network to be launched this spring.
In an interview yesterday, Dave Marish, 63, described his new position as the most interesting job on earth, working with the new English language version of Al Jazeera.
I got an email note from a friend pointing me to this story today.
Uh probably just a lateral move.
Different studios, same news.
Uh Ted Coppel and uh uh Michelle, what's her name?
What's her name at uh Michelle Marsh?
Is that her n Michelle Michelle Martin?
Some other ABC info, babe.
Uh I don't know either.
Uh Coppel is going to NPR and also is joining the New York Times editorial page as an occasional op-ed uh contributor out there.
None of this is surprising news.
I just wanted to pass it uh along to you.
And I wonder if if uh Time magazine is going to change its recent cover.
You and I were talking about this yesterday, Mr. Snerdley.
The cover is uh this man might be innocent.
This man is due to die.
Roger Keith Coleman was convicted of killing his sister-in-law in 1982.
The courts have refused to hear the evidence that could save him.
His execution set for May 20th.
Mark Warner, who Dark Horse Democratic Presidential nomination.
Keep a sharp eye on Mark Warner.
He's the supposed moderate governor of Virginia.
He's in in reality, he's a big taxing and big spending Democrat.
But it's thought that he's under the he's a stealth operative enough that he can come across as a moderate and not one of these kook fringe libs on these domestic issues, and that's why people are saying, hey, keep a sharp eye on this.
You could have a could be a dark horse candidate.
Anyway, it was Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia that undertook the DNA tests of the uh of this guy uh uh Roger Keith Coleman in hopes of finding the execution was a grave mistake and building support on the Wait, this is not the same case, is it?
Wait a minute.
I'm getting confused.
But is what is Warner involved in both of them or is Warner just involved?
Okay, I'm I'm getting confused.
They wanted the the the uh Warner undertook the DNA test in hopes of finding the execution uh was a was a grave mistake and building support on the left with the anti-death penalty crowd as he prepares to run for president, but the the the DNA evidence came in and it was slam dunk.
The guy was guilty.
So and I'm just wondering if if if Time magazine is gonna change its cover, because this guy is on the cover.
You seen it?
So little interesting tidbits out there today.
And if I don't know if people read time or not.
You got a good question, Mr. Snerdley.
I don't think as many people read it as did.
I mean, I just I you know, we these are left-wing house organs.
We know what they are, and you can see them in action.
We just wonder if I mean it's just like they took the bait on Alito and thought Alito was this, that, and the other thing, and they all end up shocked and surprised.
You know, it turns out Jake Tapper, who uh reporter for ABC slash Al Jazeera has a blog, and he uh he got hold of Dinesh D'Asouza.
Dinesh D'Souza uh was one of the editors of this magazine prospect for the concerned alumni of Princeton.
And he he he asked him, uh hey Dinesh, uh, you know, Senator Kennedy read this passage from this piece that appeared in the prospect saying that uh something about minorities and they're getting very uppity demanding to be let into all these schools, and D'Souza said, you know, this is amazing.
If you get the whole piece, it's a satire piece.
You cannot help, you cannot help but read this a satire piece.
So Tapper went out and goes, yeah, it's a satire piece.
Now this goes back to what I was telling you earlier in the week on Monday when Kennedy goes in his opening statement and says that Alito has never been found to rule in favor of minorities.
Dinesh D'Souza, by the way, is a person of color.
We need to point this out.
Well, it the the the because the group has been totally mischaracterized and misstated.
As I told you yesterday, the group didn't oppose anybody getting in to Princeton.
What they were opposed is lowering the standards to let people who weren't qualified to get in.
They wanted to maintain the standards of the place.
But anyway, so Kennedy does this little song and dance.
Uh uh, Judge Alito, we've never uh never in a whole year.
A whole year as a judge old career, you've never uh never found in favor of a minority.
The next day the Republicans have four cases where he had, and I told you, I will bet you that the staff doesn't know.
They think he's a racist because he's a conservative.
So here, Kennedy blundered again.
This is I I'm wondering if we've got a mole in the Democratic Party, because somebody made Senator Kennedy appear worse and more out of control and and he did more damage to the Democrat Party than even I have uh in the last two years.
And I'm wondering, is there a mole in there that is steering Senator Kennedy in this direction?
Is he this dumb or stupid on his own, or do we have a mole on his staff that sabotaged him throughout these hearings?
It was that bad.
He was that bad.
He was that off course.
He was that ridiculous.
So anyway, what it appears to have happened again.
It appears that some staffer found this little snippet culled from a satire piece and said, See, see, this is who these people are, they're conservatives.
And they're bragging.
It's it's sort of like Mr. Snerdley when I went and spoke to Gopak.
And I thank them uh for all of the efforts they had made in advancing conservative agenda.
And we were being tarred and feathered as extremists back then because we were gonna what were we doing?
Cutting school lunch and cutting social security and cutting whatever.
School well, but that's not what I talked about.
Remember, I I thank I thank these people for being on my team.
I was happy to be on their team, and I said, I've it's it's it's a pleasure to be here with my fellow extremists, and I just want you to know.
I so appreciate what you're doing in cutting uh the budget.
I've been reading that CJR Citizens now will uh will be forced to eat dog food.
So I went out and I got my mother a new dog food can opener.
Patricia Schroeder took that, read it on the floor of the house, and thought I meant it.
Why would she she didn't there they have no humor, these people.
They cannot laugh.
None whatsoever.
So I am convinced I was right earlier in the week.
They'll see four lines, two lines from uh from a satire piece, not see the whole piece, and and it'll just confirm their bigoted prejudice.
Conservatives are racist, sex is bigot homophobes, and bam, bam, bam, thank you, ma'am.
And they just they were they were embarrassed all week long.
Uh Dingy Harry went to Bill Frist yesterday and said, Well, you know, we want to we we we want to delay this.
We got rules and um and uh in the committee, and we want to delay the vote on this.
Because what they want to do is delay the vote beyond the State of the Union address so the president can't get an applause line when he announces uh Alito's uh confirmation uh by the full Senate, and uh and and Frist apparently told Dingy Harry to go pound sand uh with this idea.
Uh Spectre, if you remember Spectre was talking about that he fully expected to have a vote in the committee and take it out of committee to the floor of the Senate on the 17th.
Some people say, well, if he's gonna go say that, it means he must have a deal with Leahy.
But I'm told that Leahy and Kennedy have been working on dingy Harry to try to slow all this down.
They're even I mean, they're still they are even whispering the word filibuster.
As that the only way they can stop this.
Uh but it's it's a slam dunk.
It's uh it's it's pretty much done and uh and over with.
But if they try the filibuster, hey, bring it on.
Did you hear what Zironosky said about Condoleza Rice?
You haven't heard about this?
Oh.
Sit tight, folks.
Open line Friday rolls right on after this.
All right, I'm I'm surprised uh uh Mr. Snerdley hasn't heard about this.
Welcome back, by the way, open line Friday.
L. Rushmore here.
Uh this this wacko uh communist, this leftist uh uh Russian politician Vladimir Zironovsky spoke with Pravda uh this week, and he chastised Condoleezza Rice for calling on Russia to act responsibly in supplying natural gas to the Ukraine.
He attributed that anti-Russian statement Rice made to her being a single woman who has no children.
If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear, Ziranovsky ran it on.
Condoleza Rice needs a company of soldiers.
She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.
Condoleza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention.
Such women are very rough.
They can be happy only when they're talked and written about everywhere.
Oh, Condoleza, what a remarkable woman.
What a charming Afro-American lady you are.
How well she can play the piano and speak Russian.
Complex prone women are especially dangerous, Diranovsky said.
They're like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone.
Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible.
A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though.
A State Department spokesman told us Rice would not dignify the article with a response.
This is from the New York Daily News uh today.
I think this guy's in the wrong place in the wrong country.
This guy, this guy's exhibiting the same kind of rage and hatred that have made people famous in the Democratic Party.
I mean, I know I don't we don't need to analyze this lunatic's rant, but if Rice is flawed because she's single and has no children, why the comparison to mother-in-laws by definition their mothers.
Obviously, we know where this guy's been, but uh uh uh in his life.
I just find it fascinating.
Hear these hear these wonderful Russians, these ex-communists and so forth, and these uh these are the people the Lib's love.
These are the people that that they uh you know they thought we could make great hay with if we just appease it.
We didn't need to call them the evil empire.
We didn't need to call them uh uh any of that.
Uh tell you that's that's I mean, look, I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of guys think this kind of thing, but I mean this guy is supposedly a Russian politician saying this about the U.S. Secretary of State.
Jacksonville, Florida, an activist who was arrested for disrupting a city council meeting in an Aunt Jemima costume, has been banned by the council president from attending meetings until the end of March.
Her name is Jackie Brown.
She was escorted out of a November 22nd City Council meeting after loudly criticizing the council for the city's small business incentive law.
She is president of the Jacksonville Coalition of Black Contractors.
She said the law treats blacks like slaves because it doesn't provide enough opportunities for minority contractors.
She returned later during a public comment period scuffled with a cop after refusing to leave.
There's a picture of her here dressed up as Aunt Jemima.
Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida.
Jacksonville, Florida.
I know it's run by Democrats.
The whole thing.
The libs get there.
It's not possible to be happy.
I mean, it's it's in the playbook.
It doesn't i they just they're almost like robots now.
Almost just like robots and automatons.
They've been programmed for so many years, and this is how they behave when you push the button.
Just it's mind-boggling.
Well, she got freedom of expression, but you can't come in and disrupt these public meetings.
And showing up as Aunt Jemima plus whatever she's saying is disrupting the ugly meetings, these uh these public meetings.
Governor Mark Warner, whose last day as Virginia's chief executive is tomorrow, ends his four-year term with the distinction of having restored the voting rights of three thousand four hundred and fourteen felons more than any other governor in state history, far ahead of the totals in twelve of the thirteen other states that deny convicts the uh right to vote.
Thirty-four hundred felons uh have had their voting rights returned by the retiring Governor Mark Warner.
That means thirty-four hundred felons, actually three thousand four hundred and fourteen, now free to vote Democrat.
Remember, Mrs. Clinton has been making a big push to restore voting rights for uh felons, right to the phones.
Dave in Sacramento, you're up first on open line Friday today.
Hi.
Uh yes, Mr. Lindbaugh.
Uh although I disagree with you on just about every topic, uh, this one uh I guess I agree with you is immigration and why it wasn't brought up uh in the Alito hearings.
Uh so I'm I'm just wondering how how come immigration, the immigration issue was not a big topic in the Alito hearings, even by the Republicans.
Well, let me ask you this, this is one understanding.
What on what basis would a Supreme Court justice be asked about immigration?
Uh well, I think over i it uh it gives an overall sense of how he thinks of the nation, whether he thinks of the nation as a sovereign nation or uh, you know, whether he thinks it's uh protected borders and so forth.
I mean, I know Alito is a son of an immigrant himself, uh, but i i I I still think, you know, being such a big issue, it would be interesting to see how he would think about it, because there's a potential that he might actually have to rule on it because essentially uh that's why he wouldn't tell you.
That's that that's why he wouldn't give you a specific answer on this.
So he would say, as he said on a on a you know, I I actually think Alito, this I may brief brief departure.
I think um Alito had a tougher job here than John Roberts.
I actually think it you could say he did a better job than Roberts in the sense he's got a far bigger track record to defend, and he was far more expansive and open about that record than Roberts had been.
And I I want to make that observation, but it as he did with every potential case that might come before him on the Supreme Court, he would say, I I I'm not going to give a political view on this, Senator.
I mean, I I I don't have a political view of mine is judicial.
I have no idea what the issue would be on immigration until there's legislation passed and it's opposed, and somebody brings it to the court and we take the case.
I I you know, I th I think your question, and you want to interest me about your question, Dave, and I appreciate that you don't you don't agree with me about much.
What's fascinating to me about your question is the perceived role the Supreme Court has in the way you look at things.
I'm not being critical.
You have been trained as an American citizen over the years to think of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on legislation in America, or the final arbiter on political and cultural matters.
People look now to the Supreme Court to settle arguments that are political, and that's not what they're supposed to do, and that's why Alito was nominated.
It's why he's going to be confirmed.
That's why John Roberts was nominated, it's why Clarence Thomas was an Antonin Scalia.
That's not the role of the court.
They're not up there to solve political issues.
They're not up there to solve cultural issues.
They are to deal with the cases that come before them using the constitution of this country, not foreign law, as as as uh the way they measure uh the evidence before them and decide on it.
So to ask what a Supreme Court justice thinks about about uh uh any issue, including abortion.
Abortion shouldn't be an issue before the Supreme Court.
It ought to be an issue before the American people, state by state by state, which hopefully it'll be someday.
But uh immigration the same thing.
The Supreme Court ought not be deciding immigration in the political sense.
That's for the legislature, the elected Congress, the elect and the state legislatures, the elected representatives of the uh of the people to do.
How did it come up?
They asked him if he if he regretted immigrating uh or well send me a note on it because I didn't I didn't know it had come up.
It turns out here, David it has come up, but we'll get what he uh what he said.
He he he cited his attention immigration cases on the Third Circuit, and one of the Democrats tried to pin him down on immigration policy being so screwed up, and that's what he wouldn't go there, right?
Well okay.
You know, I mean he didn't say anything about it.
Did you learn you didn't learn what future of immigration is with him on the court, basically that's my point.
He shouldn't answer something like that.
We'll be back here in just a second.
It is open line Friday kicking off another excursion into broadcast excellence.
And let's go to Chicago.
Michelle, I'm glad you called.
You're next on the program.
Hi, Rosh.
Happy birthday.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
We just are so blessed to have you.
My question is I I think I heard you say this yesterday.
Um you sort of made a side comment or like a little comment about liberals being obsessed with death, which I agree with.
But I'm not sure why I agree, and I know you're just really good at explaining these things.
So I'm gonna hang up and just if you feel like talking about that.
Uh just a little bit.
Yeah, but don't don't hang up here yet.
Oh, okay.
I'll be glad to talk about this with you.
We were th this this wasn't in a discussion yesterday.
I had just learned uh we've just done a story that uh there was less discrimination and ill feeling toward fat people in America.
Oh, that's right, yeah.
And uh and I was speculating that this was because there are more fat people, and if you're gonna if you're gonna be, you know, make fun of fat people, you've got to make fun of yourself, and that isn't cool.
So it's more of an acceptance of it.
And that led to um reading the story, we find out that that that uh uh these obese women uh were worshipped.
Uh there was some guy in this report talking about obese women who were at one time worshipped.
And I I you know, I know a lot of stuff.
I mean, I'm pretty smart guy.
I never heard of this.
I never heard of obese women being I'm just I'm just setting up not getting the context here.
So I've never heard of so Snerdley says, Oh, yeah, the Romans did.
The Romans that the why they worshipped obese world.
So I just watched Rome.
I just watched a whole miniseries on HBO.
I didn't see one fat woman on the show at all.
Yeah, Hollywood doesn't lie about things.
So if there were obese women in Rome being worshipped, uh it can't be because it wasn't any HBO movie.
I mean, most I was making a joke there because people will look at movies and think they're watching real life.
And that led to uh just go what's on HBO.
And uh uh we started talking about how uh everything is supposedly historically accurate on HBO, and I said the Sopranos, I mean look at the Sopranos, we know that's the how the mob really is, undertakers on the show six feet under.
That show's dead now, and the critics miss the critics miss the fact that six what was six feet under is gone.
They miss the show.
And that's when I said the critics are all liberals and they love death.
Right.
So what I I think death was an umbrella term for the fact that liberals love misery.
Yes, exactly.
They they they love to make movies about misery and suffering.
Because that's their reality.
Okay.
Well, no, it's what they try to make that virtuous.
Okay.
Homelessness, that one, was virtuous, as in...
Well, don't be mean to those people.
It could be the next version of Marion Joseph wandering around Rochester there.
Uh they but they are obsessed.
Abortion is death, and they're obsessed with it.
Right.
The sacrament to liberalism, the sacrament.
I mean, if to feminism and all that, if if if if uh if that's their religion, the sacrament is abortion.
They are obsessed with death.
They are they are uh constantly making movies about slaughter, uh uh genocide, all this sort of thing, and they want because they want everybody to think they care about all this loss of life when there's they don't do much to stop it, if if anything, especially in the case of abortion, they're promoting it.
Right.
Unless it's an animal.
Oh yeah.
And then when if it's animals, if it's if it's if it's animals, yeah, that's that's the contradiction.
But no, I just I I've I've always thought that they have a uh a morbid fascination with uh with the extremes of suffering.
If you look at what the great works of art that they think they produce are about, it's that.
Right.
Um and and so that's all I meant by it.
Oh, yeah.
No, I thought it was I knew it from a gut level that you were right, and I I remember you sort of explaining the uh the uh pseudo religion that they've created out of the environmental stuff.
I thought maybe it kind of went along with that.
Like they have to stand up for something, so uh you know, they decide to go with the environmental way.
Well, their their their morbid fascination with death and suffering allows them to point fingers at those they want to blame for all of it.
Exactly.
And and that that forms the foundation for a lot of their domestic politics.
Um and I mean they're they for example, they have they have very little sympathy and compassion for a great example is this wacko judge up in Vermont.
Now, this judge, the here's here's a girl from age four through, I don't know, age ten or twelve, got raped numerous times over multiple years, and caught the guy.
This judge gives him sixty days.
And the judge says, I don't believe in punishment anymore.
I I I I've been on the bench twenty-five years and I used to believe in it, but I don't believe in it anymore.
Then he went on to say putting this guy in jail for three years is not where he's going to get the help he needs.
And look at where on on which side of this criminal act is this wacko judge's sympathy fall on the PERP.
He's he's he's concerned about the PERP, what's gonna happen to the PERP in jail.
Well, this is horrible.
He may suffer in there.
A man's got a terrible problem, he's a rapist.
Where is the notion of punishment?
Where is the sympathy for the girl that he mistreated and raped?
And you didn't hear any of that from the judge.
And and this guy in Vermont, obviously, whacked out leftist.
They just have they're they're they're j they're morbid.
They are morbid in their in the the sides they choose to have sympathy with.
Stanley Tukey Williams.
Why you s nobody can even psychologically explain to me why the left wanted to take up his um he's he's a founder of the crypts and he's a murderer.
Well, he never admitted it, or on other stories, well, he's repented, and he could be of great service to others who can learn that they're committing the same mistakes he did, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What where we there was no sympathy for the for the families that he killed.
Um so it's their their fascination was with with death is in and suffering is is uh is always been misplaced, but that's what I meant by it.
Yeah, I knew I knew you would explain it well.
Thank you.
I don't uh d now there was there a part of you that thought that I was saying that they Well, how did you and was there a part of you who thought I was saying something else?
Oh my god.
No.
My God I can't hold it a minute.
Hold it a minute.
I have look at did you see Kate Michelman?
Oh my God, folks, it's bad out there.
But it's not going well out there for these nags.
Well she she uh speaking well, never mind.
I'm death you speaking of death, I mean I thought I was looking at it there.
I man.
It's in the Alito hearing.
She's up there to testify what a rotten uh SOB he is.
Sorry for that.
I it's a visceral reaction.
I was normally, you know, you're not supposed to comment on people's appearances since we're talking about whether fat women are attractive now, fat people, I thought, well, why not?
She's not fat.
I just if anything, she's she's skeletal.
Maybe I sign her up for the next series of six feet under.
Anyway, was there something else that you thought that I meant?
No, I th my gut feeling was he's right.
It it's a broader you're talking about the whole um pessimistic view.
And then as I waited sort of on hold, I some of your new um parody commercial things, you know, about affluenza, I thought, yeah, that's sort of along the same lines.
There it's that whole.
Look at death is just an umbrella.
These are the doom and gloomers.
They have nothing positive.
They don't look up can you imagine what it's like to get up every day than be these people?
I mean, I've never I i th there are pr they are perennially, they are constantly, they are unhappy and angry and outraged.
They are mad all the time.
They see the worst in every situation and every person.
And I I just th they just they're they're they're they're convinced that that this country's committed all kinds of crimes.
You know, they they they're self-loathing.
You know, that's the best way to describe them, Michelle.
They're just self-loathing.
They will sit here and say that this country is no better than any country around the world.
We don't have to we don't have the right to criticize Iran.
We don't have the right to criticize Saddam.
We don't have the right to criticize a little potbelly dictator over North Korea, because after all, we introduced racism and sexism and homophobia when the white Europeans came and took this country away from the Indians.
And so that's self-loathing.
They they they they can't even they can't even draw distinctions between the goodness and greatness of their own country.
They only want to see the things that they can use to tear it down.
Uh and and so death, suffering, misery, it just describes them to me.
And uh and and the fact that they have a morbid association and fascination with it to me is not uh uh surprising at all.
Andrew, in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, Open Line Friday, and it's your turn.
Uh Ditto's Rush from a 19-year-old conservative college student.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to get your take on Lynn Swan uh running for governor, and also uh Rick Santorum.
He's running for re-election and uh trailing behind a supposedly pro-life Democrat.
What do you think?
Yeah, I I uh the Santorum situation is uh uh it's got some people concerned.
The the the the his opponent, Casey, got a very recognizable name uh and is is being passed off as uh as a as a moderate Democrat.
The problem that Santorum has in uh in his race is it's Pennsylvania.
You know, if if you go to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, two biggest cities, big Democrat states, big Democrat cities, even in the suburbs of Philadelphia where you have uh so-called Republicans, they are not Republicans on social matters.
They're like Arlan Spector.
They'll be okay on foreign policy and economics and so forth.
When it comes to social, by that I mean abortion.
These people are moderate as they can be.
I've run into these people, and they come up to me frequently and say, You gotta get the Christian right out of the party.
We're never going to get anywhere unless you get the Christian right out of the party.
And what they mean is you gotta drop this abortion business.
What they mean by that is my wife is nagging me.
I can't stay a Republican as my wife is and they're they're they're just it's they're i th Philadelphia, suburban Philadelphia where the Republicans live, becoming more and more like suburban New York City.
Uh and so those those are the two big population centers, and that's that's uh one of Lana Santorum's problems.
I I don't think that uh I by any means it's a lost cause for Rick Santorum, but it's challenge.
It it's it's gonna be a real challenge uh simply because of the uh the look of the money that Bush campaign spent in in in December in uh Pennsylvania in uh 2004.
They loaded up in that state.
They spent all kinds of money, and it did it didn't matter.
Uh Pennsylvania is a blue state.
I mean, it's like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and so forth, and even the Republicans there are um uh not what you would call full-fledged conservative uh republics, particularly when you start talking about social issues, and Santorum's identity is based on conservative social issues.
As for Lynn Swan, I love the guy.
I have uh uh I've I've met and I've had long talks with Lynn Swan.
Last time I saw Lynn Swan was uh in Pittsburgh during the AFC championship game last year, well earlier, yeah, last year in Pittsburgh there before they played the Patriots uh and lost.
Uh and he was uh he was up in the uh in the box where I was sitting, and he came in to say hello to some people.
And it was he was he was toying with the idea then, and well, everybody that knew him knew that he was toying with the ideas.
This did not did not come as a surprise.
The Republican gubernatorial primary field is gonna be pretty crowded.
Uh but I I love the guy.
I uh and he's he's uh genuine, well spoken.
Uh and he's I I'm I'm with him on I don't know his whole roster of issues and where he comes down, but the things that I've uh spoken with him about is no question in my mind that he's uh he's a uh a genuine conservative guy, a hero on the western side of the state uh over in Pittsburgh and still lives there.
Uh And he's a solid citizen.
He's just he's just a fabulous and great solid citizen.
Plus, he loves fine wine.
We'll be back after this.
Two things.
First off, how many of you saw the story today?
By the way, welcome back to uh Open Line Friday.
How many of you saw the story today by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito at ABC News?
Headline, surge in sale of disposable cell phones may have terror link.
Phones can be difficult or impossible to track large quantities purchased in California and Texas.
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
Now I, you know, I know it's journalism.
I know the I I had a talk with with uh with Tony Blankley uh yesterday, folks.
I interviewed him.
He's got a new book.
I wrote a little blurb for the back of his book.
It's called The West's Last Chance, Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations.
And it is a fascinating and wide-ranging interview.
One of the points he made is that despite 9-11, he does not think that nearly enough people in this country have stopped to understand the grave threat that we face.
He says we've been fighting the war on terror for four years, and we have yet to begin to marshal our forces.
I asked him what he means by that.
He said, Well, look, we got half the country trying to put the president in in jail for spying for crying out loud.
Uh the president's doing, you know, pretty much all he can, but he thinks he thinks Bush could be doing more.
This was not a total defense of President Bush.
But he thinks people don't understand this is not just a war on terror.
This is this is a culture war.
This is a this is a uh uh a war that is uh really threatens us.
This is our last chance.
And one of the things he mentioned was uh that he he thinks there is is an as I've said, by the way, that you know, I've said there's an ongoing conspiracy, there's an ongoing effort here to sabotage our effort to defeat this enemy.
He puts it a different way.
He thinks that there are elements in this country led by the academic and media and certain left-wing politicians to have us capitulate in this war.
To have us basically not play, not defend ourselves.
And it goes back to what I was talking about a moment ago.
Who are we to defend ourselves?
Who to say who who are we to say we're the best and worth defending?
I mean, yeah, Islam's what it is, but look at us.
We're racist, sexist, bigots, homophones.
There's this self-loathing I was just talking about with the caller from Chicago.
So when he includes the media with academic in this group of people that are actually leading the charge to have us, the the West, not just America, but the whole Western culture civilization capitulate.
I look at this story from Brian Ross.
It's okay.
Well, let's let's just let's let's tell all these terrorists everything we're doing.
Let's just let's get every bit of secret information we can out there.
Let's blow every effort we're making to try to find out who these people are and when they're going to attack us again.
Well, the people's right to know, right?
I understand the people's right to know, but where's a little where is a little restraint?
Where is where is ABC thinking, hey, you know, I'm part of this country that's under assault, and uh I know it's too much to ask journalists haven't asked acted this way, but but it turns out that the law enforcement officials say these phones were used to detonate the bombs that terrorists used in the Madrid train tracks uh in March of 2004.
Now there's a follow-up story from the Midland reporter Telegram that in this ABC story about a potential link between terrorism and the purchase of disposable cell phones, ABC Nightly News or whoever mentioned that the purchase of large quantity of phones in December came from a Midland Texas Walmart.
According to Bill Vanderland, agent in charge of Midland's FBI office, no laws were broken when a group of men attempted to purchase a large number of cell phones from the Walmart back on December 18th.
However, FBI agents responded to the incident at the request of the Midland Police Department, which was alerted to the attempted purchase by Walmart employees.
ABC's Thursday story also asserted a link between a suspected terrorist cell and the men attempting to purchase cell phones in Midland, and it wasn't true.
It wasn't true.
Why would ABC run with such a false story?
Because they wanted it to be true or thought it was, who knows?
I want to thank you.
There's some good calls waiting up here on Open Line Friday today, and I'm looking forward to getting right back to them.
▲
Export Selection