All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
January 13, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mike, you gotta you gotta have uh number six.
You have number uh seven uh standing by number eight, but really number six.
And greetings once again to you, thrill seekers and music lovers all across the fruited plane.
It's time for more broadcast excellence on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, and uh when we get to your calls, it does not have to interest me, but it could be whatever interests you.
Odds are I'll have an opinion on it.
Because I'm professional, and I'm prepared.
Email address rush at EIB net com.
We did our morning update today on um the the uh hearings that uh are upcoming on the National Security Agency spying on innocent Americans authorized by George W. Bush because he actually doesn't care about protecting you.
Bush just wants to spy on you.
And you know what else?
Bush is doing it personally in the White House.
That's the image that's being left.
And our update today was bring it on.
Bring it on.
You liberals want to show yourself on the side of Al Qaeda?
You want to show yourself on the side of people who have targeted this.
Bring it on.
Bring it on.
I happen to think the president is of the same mind.
I mean, the president's I think the president's actually eager for these hearings in an election year.
In an election year, the Democrats actually want televised hearings into what will end up illustrating to the American people on whose side they are.
They have a little Reuters story about that today.
President Bush's extension of domestic spying on Americans has inflamed Democrat critics, but public opinion is split on the issue, and analysts say that it could reinforce traditional Republican advantages with voters on national security.
It's a big mistake for Democrats to think that they can gain some sort of political traction by running against the security of the United States.
Said Jim Dyke, Republican strategirist.
Democratic critics say the effort's another example of the Bush administration's broad misjudgments and abuse of power.
After September 11th, Bush's decision to skip court authorization for the wiretaps and surveillance has drawn fire even from some Republicans.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean said, We haven't seen this kind of abuse of power since Richard Nixon.
It uh Doug Doug Schoen, uh Democrat polster said, could play to the image of a president who is overreaching and not succeeding, going to war without a clear purpose or credible proof in retrospect, isolating America, wiretap.
This is just comical.
This is just comical.
And I know a lot of you people, Rush, shut up.
Don't just let them keep thinking this way.
Folks, if we've got learned one thing over 18 years, it's this, they're not gonna listen to me.
And if they're not, now they're gonna get a start now.
If they have it up to now.
Bottom line is we had the story yesterday about polling data.
There's all kinds of polling data on the American people are on the president's side on this.
But if they want to do these hearings, and if they want to go on television and illustrate on whose side they are, then by God, bring it on.
Who's this next question?
This is uh who's this uh I guess this is still Doug Schoen, the Democrat polster.
He says we're a long way from having this as a front burner hot button issue with have an impact on the elections.
If it's just about Al-Qaeda and terrorism, I'm not sure it's a positive for the Democrats.
If there's a degree of overreaching by Bush and goes beyond that, then we have an issue.
Um let me just ask you to review recent history.
And I probably can't remember all of the similar stories.
But how many are there where the Democrats thought this is it?
We got him now.
Impeachment is ours.
We start with the National Guard story.
They wouldn't let it die, went through four iterations of it, got so frustrated they ran a false story with forged documents on CBS, ended Dan Rather's career.
Had Cindy Sheehan.
We had the 9-11 hearings, we had the Jersey girls, we had Richard Clark.
We had We had Abu Grab.
We had uh we had Club Gitmo.
All of these things.
And the Democrats salivated on every one of them just like they're salivating now on the NSA wiretaps.
I'll tell you what's gonna happen.
Just like this Valerie Plame thing, when that trial gets underway, assuming it does and there isn't some kind of plea deal.
When that trial gets underway, you're going to see a lot of journalists on that witness stand.
And when the when this when these hearings get going on on the National Security Agency, we're gonna find out who the leakers are.
James Ryzen, and this happened last Monday, two Mondays, almost two weeks ago, James Ryzen, the author of this New York Times story that was held for a year, coincidentally ended up running just about three weeks before the release of his big book,
which I announced to the world sold a mere 8,700 copies in its first week after first page treatment on the New York Times for weeks after appearing on the Today Show, this book exposing the fact that Bush has overreached, that Bush is violating the law, that Bush is spying on Americans without warrants, that Bush is violating civil liberties.
8,700 copies.
I sold that many copies an hour.
When my first books came out, ladies and gentlemen, this is embarrassing.
8700 copies.
And this guy Ryzen, two Mondays ago was on with Katie Currick, and it was clear that he had set himself up as an arbiter and a member of the elitist class that considers itself uh necessary to maintain a centrist position in American foreign policy.
Because he said things like, Well, I think what happened here, Katie, is uh a power grab by elected officials to basically wrest control of national security matters away from those of us who are supposed to keep it centered.
Well, really.
Who did that sound like?
Sounded like Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell at the State Department.
And he's all in a tizzy, and he's been running around talking about a power grab, a Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld power grab.
Which is patently absurd.
These are the people of the country elected.
One of them is a commander-in-chief, one's the Secretary of Defense, one's the Vice President.
Power grab?
State Department has the constitutional role of running U.S. foreign policy.
Yes, according to James Ryzen, and according probably to Jay Rockefeller, and according to a couple of FISA court judges, we're gonna find out who's leaking.
Bring these hearings on.
We'll find out who's leaking to James Ryzen.
We'll find out who is destroying this nation's ability to to prevail against this enemy.
That's why there is an eagerness for these hearings.
Let's go to the phones quickly to Carthage, Missouri.
This is Brian.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hi.
Yeah, Megadiddo's rush, and also dittoes to Mr. Snerdley as well.
Thank you, sir.
I I appreciate you being a voice of reason, conservatism, and freedom.
Uh it is a lighthouse in the midst of a sea of liberalism.
Somebody has to do it, sir, and I have chosen my lot in life and my path.
There you go.
Well, I my question is relating to the House Majority job that Tom DeLay has recently stepped down from.
I believe that him and Haster did a good job of advancing a conservative policy, except the one time when uh Delay said that he couldn't find Cork in the budget.
I kind of, you know, that that was a little off.
But other than that, you have a three-way race, and down here, uh our guy is blunt and his son is the governor.
So of those three guys, which one is gonna uh advance a conservative agenda?
The other thing is uh the media is portraying it more as who is gonna be the reformer.
So my first question, which one uh Well, throw out this reformist.
No, this this throw that out.
That question is that that that's typical.
Who's gonna reform the corrupt Republican caucus?
Is that what that means?
Well, pfft to that.
Now, as to who's gonna be the new Republican leader.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I look it, I watch things.
I am a I'm a uh keen observer of these kinds of maneuverings.
And it seems to me that powers outside the House have requested that John Shadig from Arizona get in the race for House Majority Leader, and he has agreed to do so.
I also put Shaddock up against Blunt up against Boehner.
I don't have any clue who's gonna I and I, you know, as as to as to who is going to advance the conservative agenda, I think all three of them would be fine to that.
I think there's something else they've got to do.
I think, and we've been talking all week here, folks, about the implosion of the Democrats, and it is happening.
I mean, there is no question.
They are they they know now they don't have the power.
The minority is not the majority.
They don't control events, they can't control outcomes.
They can use their smears and they will continue to do so.
But they fail.
They haven't gotten the president, they haven't impeached him, they haven't that nothing has worked.
They may have damaged his approval numbers and this sort of thing, but they haven't been able to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
And losing Alito and Robert, getting Robertson, both those guys in the Supreme Court, that you know, that that we just cut off two of their hands.
These these are these are these are horrible moves for these people.
So yeah, they're imploding.
However, and I also said that you can't rely just on that in order to win elections.
Just like they're trying to rely on, oh, this Republicans are corrupt.
Why, we can't stick with them enough.
Republicans are spy, Republicans are they you're not gonna get anywhere by trying to do nothing but demonize your opponents.
On the other side of that is this.
The Republicans cannot sit there and just think, ooh, the Democrats are imploding, nobody's gonna vote for them.
The Democrats are supposedly, as we speak behind closed doors, coming up with a contract type agenda.
Because all they can do is emulate Newt Gingrich.
They think everything they're doing now is emulating Republicans the way they constantly went after Clinton.
They still don't understand it was about ideas.
And ideas are the key.
Conservatives win when they run on conservative ideas.
They get in trouble when they don't govern with conservative ideas.
So what has to happen, forget what the Democrats are doing, because we know who they are.
We know they're imploding, but don't rely on that.
Whoever ends up leading this caucus is going to have to put together an agenda.
And don't use the word reform.
Well, I don't know, test it if reform works.
I don't care, I don't care what terminology.
But put up an agenda that tells people once again who we are, what we stand for, and what is going to happen when we win.
Whoever ends up leading or winning this majority leader race is going to have to do that because this caucus has got a lot of factions, there are a lot of moderates, a lot of moderates that would love to sabotage the conservative leadership here in our Republican caucus.
But so these guys are gonna have to get together and come up with an articulated plan that says here's who we are and this is what we're for.
And give people a reason to vote for them.
Don't rely on the fact that nobody likes the Democrats or fewer and fewer do, and nobody wants to vote for them.
Because there's this thing called incumbent itis, and people get fed up with incumbents just as they get fed up with anything else in politics.
And the incumbents seem power hungry and and and uh uh and and overly confident uh they're gonna have big trouble.
And you throw this Abramoff thing in there, nobody knows how that's gonna shake down.
Nobody knows.
Best guess is now it could cost the Republicans eight seats if the election were today.
That's still holding the House because there's a 15-seat majority, but regardless, the president has an agenda.
I know the president is is gonna go full bore on his agenda.
You can see that now for the next two years.
He's got another no question of my mind, he's gonna have a Supreme Court nominee, another one to nominate, and he's going to uh have other international and domestic agenda items, and it would help to have control of both houses to do this.
But it in the House it's it's gonna take a of a very plain, simple, conservative agenda that is trumpeted and shouted from the rooftops because that's what'll bring voters back to the Republican side.
It probably in even greater numbers if you couple that with this continued implosion of the Democrats and the fact that they no matter what they do, they cannot portray themselves as likable.
But you can't rely on that.
You can't rely on people to vote for you because they don't like the other guys.
Quick timeout, that's what they're doing, by the way.
Well, look at this, folks.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlan Specters today announced that he will vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Spector said, I intend to vote to support Judge Alito's nomination as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
This was at the conclusion of his committee's confirmation hearing today.
Well, this, my friends, just underscores that it's over.
It's Justice Skeleto.
Sorry.
Justice Alito now.
Rather than nominee.
It's all but all but official with Spectre coming out.
If Spectre had gone the other way because of some concerns he found about abortion, might be a little different story, but turns out Democrats lose again, which we knew was going to happen.
Here is uh James and Bangermain.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
How are you doing today?
Have you very good?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Very well.
Yeah, wonderful.
I'm calling because I'm concerned that before O'Connor resigned, there was this talk of Kennedy kind of swaying left a little bit, sometimes giving in to the Washington media, kind of pushing him.
That's been going on a long time, though.
Yeah, it has been going on a long time, but it's kind of getting more and more fevered, I guess.
And now with with her gone, and obviously four conservative justices, I'm afraid the Washington media is going to push it in even more and maybe tip them over saying we could prop you up as the new swing voe you.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised.
I I can they're probably already preparing profiles for the style section of Washington Post.
Anthony Kennedy, the new center of the United States Supreme Court.
I wouldn't, yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm just afraid that he might actually give in to it and say, oh wow, you know, I could you know just kind of think with his head, get an ego going and think I could be that guy now.
You know, something I I'm gonna say something about fear.
Don't don't be afraid of something you can't change.
And but don't be afraid of fear.
I mean, I I that it that's not productive, and it's not gonna change it.
Just be patient.
It's it's it's gonna take a while to get where we want to go here.
There will be another Supreme Court nomination that the president will be allowed to make.
Um and and Justice Kennedy is not a lost cause.
He's he's I I refuse to believe that we can tell how these people are going to vote on cases before they get there, even looking at things in the past.
But it is what it is, regardless.
Now, the one thing that I don't want to I don't want to appear to be yelling at you here.
That's okay.
But but we're we're making great progress.
This is not the time to start getting, oh no, is Kennedy gonna screw us?
We are in the process of reforming and changing the Supreme Court.
We've got two conservative nominees that are gonna go on the court, and there will be another one.
We've got Roberts now as the chief.
We've got Alito who will join Clarence Thomas and and and uh Anton and Scalia.
This is progress.
So take that for what it is and build on it.
Now don't don't don't be don't be concerned about about these other things.
They are what they are, and you're gonna be disappointed with some of the Supreme Court rulings.
We're gonna be so we're gonna be disappointed with a lot of them, no matter who these guys are.
It's never a slam dunk.
It's always you know, a roll of the dice.
What's good about this is that we we know we're getting people who have a fealty and loyalty and an understanding of the Constitution.
We got two nominees here who, in their hearing, swore off this whole concept of foreign law.
And for all this talk that these two justices didn't say anything, remember I have that bite from uh Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, where in a matter of what, 44 seconds, he destroyed the whole liberal theory of the Supreme Court.
Just destroyed it, just nuked it.
It was a substantive answer that either the Democrats and the media didn't notice or they were so frightened by it they ignored it.
The idea that these people didn't give an indication who they are and where they're going and how they look at the law is absurd.
That's nothing more than spin.
They're trying to say, hey, weren't forthcoming.
He was inconsistent.
Well, he didn't tell us anything about how he's gonna rule, but it's all B.S. These guys gave us a lot of information to know how they look at the Constitution and how they look at the law.
And so you know, despite the best efforts that the Democrat Party can mount to destroy both of these men, they are going.
One of them is the Chief Justice.
Uh Judge Alito will soon join him on the uh United States Supreme Court.
And there will be uh knowing how liberals are when they're in the minority, it's no fun to them.
They don't like being there when they constantly lose.
Um you've got Well, I don't know.
I don't know that anybody's uh you look John Paul Stevens is what, a hundred and two.
Uh uh uh suitor, you've got Ruth Buzzy uh Ginsburg.
She she's she's had, and I think she's overcome them, but I'm not sure some health problems.
Um so the odds are that there will be another slot open.
But progress is taking place here, folks.
Don't don't start getting oh woes us on me here.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
A look, folks, a heads up.
I have to remind you, I will be out next week.
Now the committee vote on uh on uh Sam Alito is on the seventeenth.
I will not be here.
You will have to get through this alone.
Well, you won't be alone.
Uh we will have Mark Belling here Monday and Tuesday, uh Paul W. Smith from Detroit on Thursday and Friday, and our old buddy Walter Williams, who will have no doubt some comment on Zironosky's uh characterization of Condoleezza Rice on Friday.
Now the tentative tentative vote for Alito in the full Senate is the twentieth, but the Democrats are trying to stall this that showed up on a websites last night in all the newspapers today.
Dingy Harry went to Bill Friss, so we want to delay the vote.
Uh they can try to delay it a week in the in the committee, by the way.
There is a rule for that.
But Spectre said he expects to have the vote on the 17th before the hearing started.
That implied he had a deal with Leahy, but Leahy and Kennedy have been leaning on Dingy Harry to screw up the works.
Their whole point, their whole desire now, they want to take the temperature on a possible filibuster, but that's you know, not gonna happen.
The next thing they want to do is delay the confirmation vote so that uh uh Bush will not be able to get an applause line by mentioning Alito as the new associate justice of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.
Uh so that's what they're planning.
But if they don't succeed in delaying the vote, the committee vote will be on the seventeenth and the full Senate vote will be on the twentieth.
I won't be here.
I'm I'm going out to Palm Springs.
I've played this tournament.
You know, I've sacrificed folks to be here.
I have not I have not played in this tournament for what is this three years.
I'm gonna go out and play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic uh which starts Wednesday, but you gotta go out there and uh the practice rounds you got ready if you're gonna have a chance in a tournament.
So those are Monday and Tuesday tournaments Wednesday through Saturday for uh for those of us rank amateurs.
The pros then play by themselves on Sunday.
Be back a week from Monday to uh kick it all up.
And I'm looking forward to going out there because I love I I love this tournament and it's uh th the the galleries out there fabulous are my people.
So I've uh I've missed it the past three years, but I am I'm equipped and prepared to be able to do my best out there in the uh in the coming week.
Uh here's Doug in Baltimore.
Doug, you're nice to call.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Ross, what honor and privilege to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
When your journeys next week in Palm Springs, how do you uh manage without the sleep number bed?
You know, that's an excellent question.
I use uh the sleep number bed by select comfort as uh as regular listeners know, and it's I I'll tell you, uh and I've I've told the Select Comfort people this.
It's a tough adjustment.
Uh once you get because the sleep comfort uh uh bed, the select the sleep number bed fits you like a glove once you get your right number, and the that's the firmness and the softness.
And uh it's it it's a tough adjustment.
What I try to do is just get as tired as I can before I go to bed so that it doesn't matter who's in the bed or what the mattress is, so I can get to sleep.
Uh just wonder if you had a travel one you took with you, or you just uh No, I I I don't I don't I don't take uh uh a travel it's not a bad idea when they're gonna be gone for a week, but that would mean that taking the bed that's in there out, putting this one in and and uh and so forth, and I don't you know when I ask the hotel to go to that kind of trouble.
Some some hotels around the country are starting to put sleep number beds in their in their in their guest rooms.
Um but you know, I uh Doug, uh gotta be judicious how I say this.
I've touched on this subject a number of times.
I have numerous mistresses all over the country.
I talk about them on this program, and they help uh in this.
But I appreciate your concern uh about this.
Uh well, I haven't I haven't been this hotel that I'm staying, haven't been there in four years.
They may well have a uh sleep number bed in there by now.
I uh oh in the presidential suite.
You know, Sturdley, it just shows you think the presidential suite is the biggest suite in every hotel?
Ha ha ha uh-uh.
That's just for pe No.
I wouldn't I wouldn't touch a presidential suite.
They're too small.
Hotels, they the real hotels in this country are around the world, the presidential suite is j I mean they any room, any suite that's listed on their website or in their brochure, no.
They always have rooms that are not listed there.
You just got to know how to do it, who to ask of course.
Yeah.
Radison Hotel, I know the Radison does have sleep number beds in them to give you one hotel that does.
I'm surprised that you didn't you didn't know this.
I mean, the the the the presidential suite is a marketing come on.
They want you to think that this is where all the top drawer filthy rich celebrities and so forth stay.
Yeah.
Uh well, that's nerdlys in the observer's suite.
Official program observer suite.
Here's Josh in uh Algona, Iowa.
Josh, I'm glad you waited, and welcome to the EIB network.
Well, thank you, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Um I don't want to talk about uh uh Judge Alito and uh the abortion issue.
I'm afraid he'll take that away if he's elected because he said in a uh job application that he was particularly proud to have worked on a opposing constitutional right to an abortion.
Now first you know you're conservatives, I think that you mean you'd be happy for that because you know most of you guys are pro-life, but I'm a I'm pro-choice, and I'm just worried it'll take away uh uh uh woman's right to have that done because like if she get raped by your father, I mean then you'd have to live with that for the rest of your life.
My God.
Oh Josh, how old are you?
I am 16.
Sixteen.
Sixteen years old.
Sixteen or fifteen, did you say?
Sixteen.
Sixteen.
Where did you this this example that you just gave of a father raping a dog?
Where did where did you hear that first?
Uh I read that on the internet.
You read it on the internet.
Um let me well.
Hey, Russ, I respect you in all manners of uh all your uh opinions.
Oh, I I understand.
No, I know you're not you're not confrontational.
I'm I'm I'm here what what you the reason I asked you how old you are, because that that argument that you just uh mentioned, I I I've been talking about this since 1988.
Uh 1984, uh before you were born.
That argument's 20 years old.
This is that's an argument that has been used to emotionally arouse people.
It's centered on the notion that all men, particularly fathers, are predators and that their daughters are not safe with them.
This was this is ancient feminism in its really, really radical period, uh, which would do anything to advance the cause of abortion.
Uh to feminists and and hardcore liberals, abortion is the sacrament to their religion.
You just said that you're pro-choice and I'm pro-life.
Uh I have tried talking to a number of pro-choice uh feminists and liberals, and I've said, you know, I'm I'm pro-choice too.
I just choose life.
Well, then you're not pro-choice.
You can't be pro-choice.
Yes, I am.
I'm pro-choice.
I choose life.
There is a choice, and I choose life.
When they will not allow me to adopt their term pro-choice, and then at the same time they turn around and say pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.
I'm sorry, it must.
Pro-choice must mean pro-abortion.
So if you want to be honest with people you're talking about from now on, tell them you're pro-abortion, because that's what you're concerned about.
Now, this notion of incest and rape has been around for so long, and it was it was uh the the incidents of this uh are not nobody nobody is is is advocating these things and nobody's defending the people that do that.
The whole argument about this has gone so far beyond that now, and it's it's it's shifting.
Uh it it's never been the 80 percent, 20 Percent pro choice winning the argument uh issue that the people would would like you to believe that it has been.
But as the fundamentally, the understand this.
If the day ever comes where the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe v.
Wade, it does not mean abortion is legal.
What will happen if they overturn Roe versus Wade is that the people of this country will decide in the representative republic democratic fashion we do, state by state, where abortion will happen or where it won't.
Some people will legalize it via their legislatures and some won't.
But the idea that the Constitution provides for it is simply absurd.
It is horrible constitutional law.
It's rotten.
It is it is indefensible as constitutional law.
The Constitution does not address the subject.
And in order to find it in the Constitution, you have to read it and see things that aren't there.
So strictly as a matter of constitutionality, Roe versus Wade has been a horrible mistake.
It is so controversial in this country, Josh, precisely because nine people in black robes with a ruling in 1973 just said by fiat, abortion is constitutional.
The people of this country haven't gotten a chance to vote on it like we do on other issues.
In Great Britain, they have.
They have voted on it.
Abortion has not been something that's been uh uh forced on the people of that country by the judiciary there, the people voted.
They still have controversy about it, but it hasn't roiled their society and turned it upside down like it's done ours.
And so if it if it ever is overturned, it is not going to end it.
Uh that's that the dirty little secret.
And the debate over this, he's going to take away, he's going to restrict abortion.
He can't restrict it.
He can't do anything.
All he can do is say this law is unconstitutional, and and bam, it goes back now to the states where the people will decide it.
Just as they can't make it constitutional in in my interpretation, they can't go out and say it's not.
What they're going to be saying is the law, Roe versus Wade, does not meet constitutional tests.
That's all they're going to say.
They're not going to be saying you can't have an abortion anymore.
But on that that's just the fundamental.
On the other side of this, um, as you're reading the internet and you're going through some of these things that sound impressive to you, and uh make an impression on you, ask yourself and educate yourself on the founding documents of this country.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states, our own declaration of independence clearly states that uh we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness.
Now, without life, there's no liberty and there's no pursuit of happiness, there's nothing.
And if the government is not going to be the agent that protects and stands up for life, who will?
And so the government is in charge to do this by virtue of our founding documents.
There are other things in the Constitution that would tend to indicate the same thing.
Uh it's it's uh you you're you're reading things that are positioning this issue to you uh in such a way that you end up thinking that there are some people who want to deny other people freedom, who want to deny other people to be who they are, to do what they want or what have you.
That's not the issue.
The issue is that for many of us, there's nothing more important than the sanctity of life, because if we don't regard life as sanct as as having uh a value that is paramount to everything else, then everything else in our society will pale uh in in comparison, and that's been the argument over the uh over the years.
So I would urge you to keep reading and I would urge you to open your mind on this uh a little bit and get off this notion that all men are predators.
I mean, I've heard them all, Josh.
I've heard these arguments we we have to abort poor people.
Well, who would who would want to give birth to somebody in a poor family in a in a in a in a ghetto and force them to live that way?
Take a look.
Take a look all over this country and around the world at the number of great people, really achieved, excellent people who came from dire circumstances, and then tell me they should have been aborted because they were born to poverty.
I mean, it it's it's it's just simply absurd some of the arguments that have been made.
And the thing you have to understand that really what this is about is people who want to be able to kill other people on the basis of their own convenience or not being inconvenienced.
And that's wrong.
That is morally wrong.
Nobody's defending rape or incest or things of that.
That's that's one of these things, as I say, that was just designed to get people all emotionally ripped up and and miss focused and distracted from what the real central issue is all about.
But after a number of years of this debate, it is straightening out, and this is why there's such panic by people on the left about this, because abortion to them is far more.
It's a it's a it's an element of their success, it's an element of their power, it's the sacrament to their religion.
It tells them how well they're doing politically in the country.
Uh it's it's just it's obscene to me and many others, the way uh life is treated by these people, and and it's uh I I run into so many liberals who are pro-choice, but they would never abort their own child.
I said, Well, what good's your view then?
Well, we must allow people the freedom to do why.
What are you gonna stand for?
You know, stand up and stand for something stand for life?
What's hard about standing up for life?
Well, it's not my responsibilities.
No, of course.
That's why we can't let you people lead the country.
Anyway, I'm long on this segment.
Josh, I'm glad you called.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I need to make a little correction here.
Some time ago, I think it was back in December, we discussed a supermarket chain based in South uh Southern California, Ralph's.
Um, and their one-time owner, Ron Burkle, and the and they have labor issues that were uh during a strike in 2004.
Uh and it was a mistake to associate Ron Burkle with Ralph's at present in their current labor uh problem or whatever is going on with them.
It even slips my mind now what it was.
But Ron Burkle sold his interest in uh Ralph's in 1998 and uh had no involvement with whatever's going on with Ralph's.
Now this it's a got it's uh the big labor problems they're having there.
Uh Ron Burkle, a huge Democrat fundraiser and sponsor, but he was not part of Ralph's when this happened.
He sold, I think it's a Kroger back in 1998.
And get this.
This is unbelievable.
Well, part of it is unbelievable.
Al Gore's going to deliver a speech on Monday, Martin Luther King Day, attacking George W. Bush's police state.
The speech sponsored by Moveon.org and the Liberty Coalition.
He will be joined by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia.
Okay.
Quickly, some environmental wacko picks.
The Washington Redskins, nine and a half point favorites or under well, yeah, no, they're getting nine and a half points on the road at Seattle against Seahawks.
This is not hard, folks.
This is really easy.
Redskins, it's all you need to know.
Pick the Seahawks.
Even though the Seahawks, there is no such thing as a Seahawk.
Seahawk is an imaginary bird.
There is go look, there's no such thing as a Seahawk.
But even something that doesn't exist deserves to beat.
The Redskins.
Now, you might say, well, Rush is the Redskins, they're in the Indians, they have a right.
No, no, no.
These are oppressed Redskins.
They're being forced to use that name.
That's not who they are.
New England, Denver, the Patriots versus the Broncos.
You might say this is easy too.
The Patriots, these are not Patriots.
Not today.
People that saved the country.
People the founding fathers and so forth.
Nope, nope, they're not Patriots.
They're the original polluters.
They brought homophobia, racism, and sexism.
They may still live in Boston trying to stay attached to their great traditions and history, but they're a bunch of frauds, the Patriots.
They're not patriots.
These people are oppressors.
They're part of the white majority.
They probably were members of CAP at Princeton.
Broncos, wild horses out in the middle of the great American West, roaming free, playing at home against these intruders who are going to try to conquer in Visco Field the way they succeeded in conquering America from the Indians.
But they are frauds too.
The Broncos will buck them back to Boston.
Take the Broncos, give the three points back after this.
Stay with us.
Rush, what do you got against the Redskins?
Nothing, folks.
I'm bound by the environmental wacko method.
The Redskins are not redskins.
They are Caucasians and black guys being forced to call themselves Indians.
They have no prayer.
We can't win as a bunch of frauds.
See you in a week.
Have a great next week.
▲
Export Selection