All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
January 31, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
God, this is such a black day for the American left.
Such a dark day.
I'm sure as far as they concern, the sun has not come up yet today.
Everything they revile, everything they despise is humming.
George W. Bush, the U.S. economy, ExxonMobil, Shell, Walmart, Sam Alito, the U.S. military.
Everybody's kicking butt.
And it just got to frost them, folks.
And we are so happy.
We're having more fun than we should be allowed to have.
This is the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
We are Dittocamming the program today.
We have been since the top of the program.
And as always, it's at rushlimbaugh.com, the audio stream.
Something that happens every day.
We don't always do all three hours of the program on the DittoCam, although we are today.
But we're having some streaming problems.
We continue to work on them.
Brian, broadcast engineer here, has been trying to log into the streaming Dittocam.
It took him 45 minutes to get in, but he got in.
So we don't know.
Some people are getting it and some people aren't.
We are aware of the problem.
We are continuing to work on it.
I was just talking to Mr. Snerdley during the break.
I have a little concern, folks.
One of the staples of this program has been illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
Parodies, bits.
And it used to be easy to parody the left until they are becoming our parodies.
And it's getting challenging.
I mean, more and more challenging to parody a parody.
I mean, these idiots, these 60s retrads are actually going to gather outside the state cab, the U.S. Capitol tonight, start banging pots and pans in hopes of drowning out President Bush's State of the Union speech.
Now, I know that they have to know there's no possibility.
They're hoping for media coverage.
They're hoping that this protest will somehow alter the course of President Bush's State of the Union speech and its acceptance by the American people.
It's just, it's difficult to comprehend.
And I think I've heard it said by somebody, and I'm starting to accept this as maybe a partial explanation.
All of these relics from the 60s, and many of them are in the Senate, like Leahy and Kennedy and these, like I say, if these guys weren't in the Senate, they'd be running bagel or coffee shops in San Francisco.
Well, in Kerry's case, cookie shops.
But they're just beyond my ability to describe other than this.
And that's tough for me to say because I'm fluent with my descriptive abilities and words flow freely off of my fluid tongue.
But I think that these people are actually engaged in a sort of daily therapy, whether they know it or not.
They are casting themselves as protesters, but they're actually just trying to make themselves feel good about themselves.
There is no way these people can actually think that they are accomplishing anything.
There's no way they can actually think they're actually affecting the outcome of political events, especially over the past five years when everything they stand for loses and they've shocked everything in their ammo and nothing has hit the target.
Oh, there have been a couple that have grazed the target now and then, but there hasn't been any lasting damage.
And the epitome of this is to stand outside the Capitol tonight, bang pots and pans.
I think we're dealing with a bunch of self-indulgent baby boom wackos who just can't get over the fact that all of America doesn't revolve around them and their ideas, and they don't know what to do about it.
Now, I touched briefly on the Dana Milbank story in the Washington Post today, but I'll go into this in a little bit more detail because it's hilarious.
This story reads like a parody script that we would write here.
I mean, it is just, it's hilarious.
Starts out the new Washington Post-ABC news poll, finds congressional Democrats in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting President Bush and Republican lawmakers on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, immigration, ethics, and more.
And yet, and yet they keep losing.
How can this be if the Democrats are doing so well in these polls, issue after issue after issue, and Bush's approval is so low, 39 percent?
How in the world can they?
Well, the first answer is their problem is they're believing the polls that they rig in their favor.
The polls rigged in their favor are designed to affect public opinion.
Now, to the extent that the polls reflect what they want public opinion to be, then they believe it.
But the polls obviously are not accurately reflecting public opinion.
The polls that show Bush trailing Democrats on Iraq, trailing Democrats on the economy, trailing Democrats on healthcare and immigration and ethics, the American people do not actually believe anything.
Or if they did, everything else the Democrats are trying to get done would be getting done.
Alito wouldn't have been confirmed.
There would have been massive support for opposing anything Bush wants to do these days if it was so low in approval.
And yet these people believe their own polls.
It's like it's no different than they believe their own editorials.
So the frustration Dana Milbank writes about manifested itself yesterday.
In addition to this group promising to protest the State of the Union speech tonight with the pots and pans outside the Capitol building, liberal activists Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark gathered yesterday at the Bus Boys and Poets restaurant and bookshop at 14th and V Streets Northwest for what they build as a forum on the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
But the participants, while charging the administration with crimes against humanity, a war of aggression, and even the supreme international crime, inevitably turned their wrath on congressional Democrats, who they regarded as a bunch of wimps.
Now, at this place, Bus Boys and Poets, just the place is a parody.
This place only exists in the minds of parody and satirists and writers like me who put these bits together.
But there's actually this place called Bus Boys and Poets Restaurant and Bookshop.
And they had slogans on the wall that said, make love, not war.
Had pictures of Joan Baez, Ramsey Clark, Jane Fonda, and these people gathering to try to figure out what's gone wrong and what is wrong.
David Swanson, a labor union official who runs an impeach PAC, said, does the Democratic Party want to continue to exist or does it want to ignore what 85% of its supporters want?
Singling out Harry Reid for derision, David Swanson said the Democrats who do the right thing are exceptions.
Sheehan, just back from Caracas, where she praised the anti-American president Hugo Chavez, called Bush a terrorist, said she expects Democrats will seriously screw up the midterm elections in November.
Besides, we can't wait for the election, said Sheehan, who is mulling a primary challenge to Senator Feinstein.
Cindy for the Senate, called out moderator Kevin Zees, a Ralph Nader acolyte.
It's important for us to stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans and break out of this two-party straitjacket, argued Zees, a third-party candidate for Senate in Maryland.
After the participants made their urgent calls for impeachment proceedings, John Bruins, identifying himself as an anti-war Iraq veteran, rose for a clarification.
He said, if the Democrats don't first gain control of one of the houses of Congress, how else can we impeach this monster?
Swanson had a ready brush off for Democrats who won't pursue impeachment because they're in the minority.
Just go home if you're going to talk that way.
Offering the lessons of 94, he said, the way the Republicans got the majority was not by being scared.
It was by going out and speaking on behalf of their base and letting themselves be called radicals.
It was also because they were right on their issues and they weren't a bunch of kook freak loony tunes like you people are.
Bruns, wearing a crew cut in a business suit, disagreed.
Somebody in the audience called for him to shut up.
They didn't answer my question, Bruins protested after the exchange ended.
How do you get impeachment if you don't win elections?
I'm being practical.
Let's cut to the end of the article.
The moderator, this Zees guy, Kevin Zees, Ralph Nader acolyte, said elections are not the determining factor.
Well, folks, we can't lose to this crowd if that's their prevailing opinion.
Elections are not the determining factor.
Ramsey Clark, on a stage decorated with portraits of Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Martin Luther King Jr. said the administration is the greatest threat to peace, to human rights, to economic justice worldwide.
The former attorney general proposed a 75% cut in the military budget and complained that Democrats are just warmongering like Republicans.
Marcus Ratzkin, longtime anti-war activist, compared the Pentagon's shock and awe to the Nazis' Blitzkrieg.
What we have now is nationalist triumphalism.
Swanson announced that he will be forming a committee to pressure the D.C. Council to send charges of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
I kid you not.
I'm not making this stuff up.
This is David Swanson.
He's a labor union official who runs ImpeachPAC, and he announced that he's going to form a committee to pressure the D.C., the District of Columbia, the city council, to send charges of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
Sheehan, in a sweet voice, condemned the administration's agenda to spread the cancer of empire.
The first questioner, getting into the spirit of the forum, declared of the administration, these criminals, these gangsters, thugs, as I regard them, I believe engineered 911.
What, was Joe Wilson there?
Many in the crowd applauded, but others were skeptical.
Look, I've heard a lot about accountability from the panel, said one questioner.
Seems to me the first opportunity we had for accountability was in the last election.
And that's when Zees said elections are not the determining factor.
I don't know how to parody this.
I don't know how to make fun of this.
We tell jokes about these people, and it's almost like all these parodies for 18 years that we've been doing to these people, they are now living them.
Seems like every time I make a joke about the Democrats, it eventually, even it's the most outrageous joke I can think, it actually comes true at some point.
Now, they are bringing EIB parodies to living, breathing life.
I hope there are pictures of this people, this wacko Looney Tunes bunch with their pots and pans outside of the Capitol tonight.
I just hope we see pictures of that.
Quick timeout, folks.
Be right back.
And we're back.
Rushland bought talent on loan from God.
They're a highly trained broadcast specialist executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Doesn't get any better for Hillary Clinton.
There's a new Marist poll out.
It came out last night.
And it's sort of good news, bad news.
The good news is that 54% of New York State's registered voters say they would definitely vote to re-elect Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate, including most Democrats and a majority of Independents.
But the bad news in this Marist poll is this.
Should Hillary Clinton decide to run for president in 2008, 62% of New York State's registered voters don't think it's likely she will be elected.
And that includes 54% of registered Democrats.
Also in the bad news category, Clinton controversial, her comment about the Republicans running the House like a plantation was not well received by New York State's registered voters.
So 54% of the registered voters say they would definitely vote.
Well, that's definitely somewhat likely as another bunch.
Yeah, she's unopposed.
If it's only 54% definitely would vote for her.
She's in trouble even in New York.
I mean, not in terms of being re-elected, but I mean, for the prospects of parlaying that into something.
But I mean, come on.
We just had the Harris poll.
No, it was a USA Today CNN Gallup poll.
51% of all Americans would definitely vote against her.
62% of New York State's registered voters don't think that it's likely she can be elected president of the United States.
Now, along the lines of the Dana Milbank story that I just shared with you, there is another story in the Chicago Tribune today.
Faithful in Ohio say party must find voice.
What happened is that Rom Emmanuel, Clinton acolyte, now he's a member of Congress from Illinois, and he heads up the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, which is his job to get as many Democrats elected to the House as possible.
He went out to Columbus for fundraising and an outreach and a town meeting and so forth.
And the audience was supposed to be a gracious one.
But Rom Emmanuel found himself fielding spirited questions at a breakfast meeting late last week as he laid out his ideas on how Democrats could seize control of the Congress from the Republicans.
When the Illinois congressman did not include national security in his top five talking points, a man raised his hand in his voice.
Ford Huffman, a Columbus, Ohio attorney, said, can I give you a piece of advice?
They obviously believe it's their winning issue, the Republicans.
Why can't we get out in front with it and say there is not an issue about security?
Every American believes in securing America.
Emmanuel tried to answer that question, asserting his eagerness to challenge the White House, but said he doesn't believe national security should be a political issue.
As Emmanuel spoke, the lawyer turned his head and told those sitting around him, sounds like we're trying to dodge the issue.
People are going to say the Democrats are being wussies.
In short order, a routine breakfast fundraiser for the party's local congressional candidate unfolded into a lively debate over what many Democrats believe is the party's most vexing challenge, finding its voice on national security and preventing Republicans from painting them as weak.
The people put Rom on defensive.
They're going to say that the Democrats are a bunch of wussies.
Frank Cipriano, Columbus real estate developers.
We just can't say Republicans are bad.
We have to find something new to say.
Cipriano voiced his opinion over bacon and bagels at a fundraiser for Mary Joe Kilroy, county commissioner, former school board member in Columbus.
While Emmanuel had come to deliver a speech to fire up Democratic activists, he encountered an unusually frank discussion inside Rigsby's restaurant.
And for nearly 30 minutes, he was on the defensive as a candid exchange highlighted Democrat tensions.
But it was national security, though, that his audience returned to again and again.
Now, what's interesting to me about this is that they don't identify these five issues in this story.
Oh, I didn't read the whole thing.
Maybe they do.
I can guess at what they are.
Healthcare, economy, jobs.
The usual talking point issues that we get from these people in their playbook for the last 30 years.
National security in the midst of the war on terror is not in the top five issues the Democrats plan to use.
Not in the top five.
And these people listening to Rahm Emmanuel, their instincts are right.
What are you doing?
You're trying to get the House back and you're not even going to talk about it?
Now, the question for me is, what do you mean you're not going to talk about it?
You are talking about it, and you're making it a big deal already.
You're accusing the president of being a spy.
You're accusing the president of spying on innocent Americans.
He's not acting in national security.
The Democrats have already invested in the defeat of the United States in the war in Iraq.
They are siding with the insurgents.
They're trying to get us to pull out.
They want us to cut and run.
They don't think that we're in a legitimate war.
They don't think there's a reason to be at war, and they don't think we are.
They don't think we have an enemy.
And yet they turn around and they say that Bush is a spy.
And they tried making something out of this NSA scandal, and there's going to be hearings on this.
And I'll bet they wish they could get these hearings canceled because the polling data on the NSA spying scandal is about the same as it is on Alito.
Most people don't care if it's about securing the country and preventing another 9-11.
Yeah, let's find out who Al-Qaeda is talking to in this country.
Makes imminent sense, but not to the Democrats.
They want to turn that into an issue that says Bush is a spy.
Bush is the reason that we're in trouble.
Bush is the threat.
We need to impeach Bush.
Well, these Democrats in Columbus, apparently a far cry from this madcap Looney Tunes bunch of kooks that gathered in Washington yesterday and will gather outside the Capitol tonight to bang their pots and pans in hopes of drowning out the State of the Union address because they're at least realists.
They understand how their party is being portrayed here by the people.
Now, I don't know.
You talk about Denji Harry was asked who's running a Democratic Party.
How can Ron Emmanuel go out to a fundraiser, identify five issues on which the Democrats are going to take back the House and not put National Security in there because he thinks it shouldn't be politicized?
Who's politicizing it?
Who is politicizing it?
Rah Emmanuel's party.
The reason he doesn't put it in there because he knows his party has no position on it.
He knows his party cannot be believed because of the way they behaved the last five years and the whole war in Iraq, the 9-11 Commission, Richard Clark, everything that went wrong was Bush's fault.
The enemies are really not that bad.
We're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves in our prisons.
And now they're going to turn around and act like national security is a big concern.
Emmanuel knows they can't pull that off of credibility.
He knows it's safer just to ignore it.
But the Democrats out in the country, mainstream Democrats left, are fed up at being portrayed as a bunch of cowards.
Here's another problem for the Democrats.
Half the time, they're talking about George Bush as the imperial president can do anything he wants, power mad, going to take away all of our freedoms, going to become a dictator.
And in the next breath, they will describe him as inept and incompetent and stupid and can't do anything.
Then they say, we've never been, Denji Harry actually said, we have never been more unified.
We have never been in a better position than we are in now.
You will hear that coming up in mere moments.
But first, Angelica in Texas City, Texas.
Hi, nice to have you on the program.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
You have a very interesting and entertaining show.
Thank you.
I appreciate you saying so.
You're welcome.
I'd like to talk about, you mentioned national security, how the Democrats have these five items on their list, and national security is not one of them.
But my question or some of my comments are: national security, I mean, bin Laden and his group are still at large, okay?
And that's supposedly one of our reasons for going into Iraq.
And you have this group that was responsible for 9-11 still at large.
I mean, do you agree we're a sophisticated, intelligent government?
All right.
Do I agree that we are.
I just, you know, I quickly, quickly, can you concur that the United States is an intelligent security?
I don't understand the premise of the question, but yes, I expect you.
Okay, then why wouldn't this sophisticated, intelligent government have been able to capture this gentleman?
He's still at large.
He's responsible for 9-11.
Everybody goes on and on about 9-11.
Wait, wait.
I'm getting close to speechless because I really, you and I are not connecting, and we're not connecting because you're just emoting.
I don't know.
I'm not saying, Mr. Lindbaugh.
People are going to have to sitting at the bank.
I'm going to try.
This is one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I'm going to.
Let me ask you a question.
Sure.
Go back to Rahm Emanuel leaving out national security as one of the top five things the Democrats have to do to take back the House.
Are you suggesting that you think the president and this current administration have nothing on Democrats when it comes to national security because we haven't captured bin Laden?
Is that what you're saying?
I'm trying to understand.
Is that what you're – there's no wrong answer.
Right.
Right, right.
There's no wrong answer.
There's no right answer.
Exactly.
No, no, no.
No, there is.
No, no, Jesus.
I knew this was going to be.
There is a right answer.
This is not a trick question.
I'm not trying to trip you up.
I'm trying to determine what you really think.
Do you think that Bush has nothing on the Democrats when it comes to national security because we haven't captured bin Laden?
No, I think he does have.
I think he does have something.
But the point is, if this is such a sophisticated, intelligent government, he would have already been able to capture this individual.
He's still at large.
And our reason for being in Iraq was because of 9-11.
And how much sense does that make?
You know, you have to look at things.
You tell me, hold, hold, hold, hold, hold, this is, I mean, some things are just.
No, no, no, no.
It's my turn.
Okay.
When did we capture Adolf Hitler in World War II and thus proclaim victory over the Nazis?
When did we 40s?
We never did capture him.
He committed suicide.
We never captured him.
The point being that you're focusing on something that is so irrelevant to the issue of national security.
No, sir.
It's not irrelevant.
Because a government of the world.
Angelica.
It is.
I am trying to help you.
You are a lost soul with a good heart.
You are a lost soul with a great, good heart, and you just, you are so misfocused on what's important.
No, sir.
No, sir.
Can I say something?
Whenever two people are important to have two parties, okay?
It's important to have a two-party system.
Everybody doesn't agree.
You have to have dissenting opinions are important.
Sometimes that brings about conflict.
Conflict brings change.
That's important.
But I think what I don't think is okay is that you just want to, when I'm trying to speak, you have to say you're a law.
I'm not saying that about you.
To me, that's immature.
That's why I said your show is entertaining.
You don't have to tell someone, oh, you're so lost, you're so bad.
No, we have decisions.
But you aren't.
See, you're like a friend of mine.
I can't ask this guy I know a question without him thinking he's being insulted, so he insults everybody back.
No, no, no, but I'm not insulting you with this.
I am trying to help you.
I think it is close to beyond my ability to intellectually comprehend your position.
And to discuss it with you is a challenge to me because I would like to have you looking at this in the proper contextual way and then come up with whatever opinion you want.
I'm not trying to form your opinion, but the basis, the context, the factual foundation you are using to form your beliefs is so it's so wrong and erroneous that you are hopeless.
You have no hope of discovering and finding the truth.
You have created a false truth and from that truth descends all of your beliefs.
And because that false truth is bogus, everything you believe is nonsensical.
Now, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here, but you have to be snapped back to reality.
It is irrelevant whether we capture bin Laden in terms of which party leads the way on national security.
It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but whether we captured your kids after they broke the window in your house is just as irrelevant to whether we've captured bin Laden.
You have a view of the country and the world that I think is the result of whatever sources you access poisoning your whole outlook on things.
The real problem, if you're a Democrat, that you have is that your party, and it's been this way for 30 years, well, yeah, 30 since the 70s, you are perceived as gutless, cowards, wimps when it comes to defending and protecting this country.
You routinely impugn the military.
You attack it.
You go out of your way to impugn the members of the military.
Your media writes stories about what a bunch of hayseed hicks they are because they live in America.
They have no hope.
They have no hope to find a good job because they live in America.
So they have to join the military and risk their life just to get a college education because the country is in such bad shape.
Well, that is so cockeyed.
It is so offensive and it's so wrong that it is baseless.
It forms no substance on which to even have a conversation.
I'm trying to help you see things in a much larger context.
But until you abandon the sources that are providing you the information you have, your context and your vision is not going to expand.
So, what do you mean, the sophisticated government?
Why haven't we captured bin Laden?
When did we capture Tojo?
When did we capture Gorbachev?
When did we capture any of the other people that we have defeated?
You know, we've captured Saddam, and you people say we're just in a quagmire in Iraq.
So here we've captured one guy, and all of a sudden it hasn't mattered.
It's irrelevant.
Angelica, Susan in Newton, New Jersey, you're next on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, it's a great honor, Rush.
Thank you very much.
My point is I'm enjoying the crack up of the Democrats as much as you are, but I'm somewhat concerned, especially looking forward to the 2008 elections, that the kuk fringe is going to break off and put up a third-party candidate, maybe even form a third party.
And I guess on the outside of that is we'd end up with a government like Canada's where you have to create a coalition, and inevitably that waters down essentially our conservative agenda.
But on the more plausible end, I think if we had a third-party candidate, we're going to end up with another Clinton.
Well, interestingly, I have talked to some Democrats who fear the same thing.
But their theory goes a little bit further down the road than yours does as to who would comprise this new third party.
There are some Democrats who genuinely fear that if there is a third party, it will be made up of the kooks and the lunatics that make up the fringe left on the Democratic Party who are ready to drop out.
And also people on the right who are Republicans who have one issue on their minds right now, and that's immigration.
And if they don't get what they want, they will form an alliance with these kook fringe leftists and come up with this new third party.
Now, I think that's, I don't believe that for a moment.
I don't think there's anything about the kook fringe left that makes it strong as anything as a member of the Democratic Party or as an element of the Democratic Party or as a third party.
Particularly in the sense they're not going to get any members of Congress elected or they're not going to get any members of the Senate elected.
So if they have a third-party presidential candidate, if that third party is made up of these vagabond recalcitrant kooks, all they're going to do is split the Democrat Party vote.
And the Perot effect will end up hurting whoever the Democrats nominate rather than whoever the Republicans nominate.
I'm not sure this third party is going to happen.
If it does, these kooks are going to form a third party not for the purposes of winning because everybody knows third-party candidates do not win.
So they're going to do it as a form of protest and they'll do nothing but divide the Democratic Party and weaken this loose-knit bunch of coalitions even further.
But it could happen because there is no glue keeping these people together at the Democratic Party.
But this, you know, I don't think this is a third party to be feared.
I think the formation of a third party, as you describe it, made up of the Democratic kooks, will just be another in a long line of steps of the Democratic Party imploding.
It would be what puts itself back together after that breakup as a new Democratic Party.
If this was to go that far, which would be more interesting to me.
But I'm not at all concerned that a Democratic fissure like this could lead to any kind of a coalition government involving three parties.
And I'm not concerned that it's going to automatically elect a Democrat because that's the vote that it's going to split.
And I would find that even as much, if not more enjoyable, than what I'm witnessing now.
I would encourage him to do it.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, we are back.
Let's go to Brad in Chicago.
You're next to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you on a program, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine.
Thank you.
Listen, man, I am fired up about Schumer right now.
Did I hear it right?
Did he basically call us racist?
Well, you're talking about, let's say, tonight when the president announced it to play many of you rejoicing at Jojelito's.
Millions of Americans will be at risk of losing their day in court when they suffer the yoke of discrimination.
I don't think he's not racist.
He's calling us bigots overall.
I mean, women are going to lose their rights.
Humans are going to lose their rights.
Workers are going to lose their rights.
Animals are going to lose their rights.
Everybody's going to lose their rights.
We're going to die.
We're all going to be shipped down to club getting all, and that's it.
We're dead.
We're all going to be in prison.
This kind of stuff is going to, this is why we can't come together as a country.
I mean, do you hear Republicans saying anything like this?
Do we, I mean, I'm sure there's a fringe or two.
There's a Pat Robertson, but for the most part, you don't hear people being incendiary about Democrats on the Republican side.
Well, you know, you mentioned Pat Roberts.
And look, Pat Roberts can say whatever he wants, and it'll be news for two days of what a kooky is and they'll go talk to Republicans.
Don't you think you should distance yourself from this man?
Don't you think this man should shut up?
Don't you think this man's embarrassing?
Harry Belafati comes out, calls Bush a terrorist, worse than Hitler, blah, blah, blah, says that the Patriot Act is the equivalent of Nazism or whatever he said.
He gets two days of serious analysis on CNN and the other cable channels.
So it is what it is.
Chuck Schumer is just a fading liberal who realizes he's in the minority.
I think if you want to talk about racism, listen to Ted Kennedy here.
This is, we played this bite earlier, but this is old Ted, and he's screaming on the floor of the Senate yesterday before the cloture vote.
Our founding fathers failed the test when they wrote slavery into the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln pointed the way and we passed the 13, 14, 15th amendment and had a civil war, but we didn't resolve this issue.
It was only until we had the courage of those members of what branch of government?
Not the United States Congress, not the United States Senate, not the executive, the judiciary, the Fifth Circuit.
We're talking now about the Supreme Court.
But they are the ones that change this country inevitably with what we call the march toward progress.
So here is Senator Kennedy again admitting what the court represents to liberals.
It's a way to get what they believe enacted as law since they can't pass those laws democratically in legislative bodies.
But Senator Kennedy leaves out something very important here, and it's this.
Ladies and gentlemen, the only reason that civil rights had to go to the courts was because of Democrats back in the 50s and 60s in that very same precious Senate of which Senator Kennedy's a member.
And they filibustered civil rights back in the 60s.
They filibustered against civil rights legislation.
Democrat governors stood in schoolhouse doors to disobey the executive branch.
Democrat chiefs of police like Bull Connor turned fire hoses loose.
Democrats were beating up Congressman John Lewis back when he was marching with Dr. Martin Luther King.
It was the Democrats back then who were standing in the way of the passage of civil rights, which is why it had to go to the courts.
And Senator Kennedy conveniently leaves that out because the modern mantra is that it's Republicans who were racist.
It was Republicans who didn't want civil rights.
It was Republicans who stood in the way of the Civil Rights Act.
A greater percentage of Republican senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.
Bill Clinton's icon, his mentor, J. William Fulbright, led one of the Senate measures to oppose civil rights.
Big segregationist.
All these Southern Democrats were huge segregationists.
And that's why it had to go to the courts, because the legislatures, the Congress and the Senate back then, run by Democrats, were the obstacle to civil rights.
That's history.
And we'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
You know, Coretta Scott King died today.
And there's all this coverage.
I mean, and it's, I'm not critical of the coverage, but I just think it's ironic.
I think it's as hypocritical as it can be.
Because here's Coretta Scott King being lionized and deified practically today.
But none, zilch zero nada of the reporting is mentioning who it was that wiretapped her husband, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., for the purposes of destroying his marriage.
It was good old Bobby Kennedy Party Democrat.
Year 60s.
Same year that Democrats in the Senate are fighting the Civil Rights Act.
So they're wiretapping Martin Luther King.
They were spying, domestic spying, Bobby Kennedy, because the rumors were that Martin Luther King had mistresses all over the place.
And they wanted to find out.
They wanted to discredit Martin Luther King, the Kennedy administration, for the purposes of making it all public and destroying his marriage.
▲
Export Selection