All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
May 4, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the gang here and I, of course, always staying abreast of the latest breaking news out there.
The show prep never stops.
We're not going to jip this.
Is it not necessary?
But the president is conducting a Cinco de Mayo, Cinco de Mayo Day event at the White House, extolling the values of Mexican Americans, their contributions to our culture and the military and so forth.
By the way, greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, with more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am America's anchor man.
We're here at the EIB network.
So I'm sitting here watching this, and I've got this stack of illegal immigration news.
And I'm asking myself, he knows what the polls are.
He knows there's a backlash going on.
Why is he continuing to basically just flomp the base here on this, the base of the Republican Party?
He knows where it is.
And I can give you the answer.
He's a big tent Republican, folks.
I have told you this countless times.
One of his objectives, and I kid you not, he and Karl Rove have this massive dream of wiping out the Democratic Party as a dominant political force.
And they believe that the only way they can do that is to go attract a significant percentage of the Democrat constituencies and convert them to the Republican Party.
And that's really what this immigration thing is about.
It's what the Cinco de Mayo event is about.
And that's what the objective is.
It is party politics.
It is a dislike for Democrats and liberals and so forth.
And that's what's behind all this.
So he said, okay, the motive I like, is it the right strategy?
Is this the way to expand your base?
So I happen to think you expand your base with conservatism, not inclusiveness.
Inclusiveness and diversity and all that are just liberal terms.
We're not great because we're diverse.
We're great because we're free.
We're not great because we're different.
We're great because we're free.
At any rate, I just want to explain it to you because I'm sure a lot of you are going to see videotape of this tonight, and it's going to be like watching, they're listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.
Why are they doing it?
I'm just trying to explain it to you in advance so that you don't go nuts.
So that you at least have, because right now the mariachi man's up there giving a little go here.
I mean, yeah, it is right there in the White House.
And you're going to see this after what happened on Monday.
And like the Rasmussen poll is out, and there's been no change on any of these.
In fact, it's getting a little worse for, oh, now there's Rumsfeld's in Atlanta, Southern Center for International Studies, and a bunch of typically looking ragged, maggot-infested, whatever, standing up protesting him, guilty of war crimes is the sign.
What is with that green color?
Ooh, ooh, they're ripping the sign out of the babe's face and out of her hands.
And here comes security to kick the protester out of there.
Rumsfeld doesn't mind.
It's all good.
He's laughing himself silly because this woman's a nut.
This woman's obviously not all there.
This woman's obviously deranged.
And so he's laughing about it.
Security, let her hold up the sign for a while, make a fool of herself.
Cardinal rules, somebody want to make a fool of themselves, go ahead and let them do it for a while.
And then, who is this?
Art Garfunkel looks like standing up with his back to Rumsfeld while everybody else is sitting.
It's not Garfunkel, but it's an Art Garfunkel lookalike.
Okay, Rummy's having fun with it all.
That's what you have to do, folks.
People want to make idiots of themselves.
You let them.
I want to go back, Madeline Albright, I want to play this bite again on God.
This is where she's asked by, because there's a follow-up to this.
Miles O'Brien is asking her, what about Bush's rhetoric uses God, invokes God all the time.
A lot of presidents have done that.
So what?
I actually thought that George Bush was a complete anomaly.
He's not.
As you point out, all American presidents have in some way invoked God.
The difference is that President Bush is so certain about what God is telling him and also making it clear that God is on America's side so that if you pick a fight with us, you're picking a fight with God.
After 9-11, I think he really was great in terms of unifying the people.
Stop the tape, Hyram.
Stop the tape.
You know, this is absurd.
For one thing, Bush is not listening to what God's telling him.
He's telling God he's praying to God.
It's exactly the opposite.
But beyond all that, if he's making it clear God's on America's side, so that if you pick a fight with us, you're picking a fight with God.
What is the root fear here?
The fear is of making somebody mad.
The fear is of offending somebody.
The fear is that we should, and this is typical of leftists who don't believe in American exceptionalism, who don't believe that what we have in this country is worth attempting to spread.
That's why they call it imposing it on people.
But this is just patently absurd.
I don't even want to listen to the rest of it.
I just have a question.
Did she get this upset when Hillary Clinton admitted to all of us that she's having seances with Eleanor Roosevelt?
Hillary said that Eleanor was talking to her and she was talking to Hillary.
And I'll bet they went, oh, oh, Hillary communicated with, oh, what brilliance.
Oh, can we come?
Can you share the conversation?
It's just, it makes me laugh.
So here's the president today.
President was the National Day of Prayer this morning at the White House.
America is a nation of prayer.
It's impossible to tell the story of our nation without telling the story of people who pray.
The first pilgrims came to this land with a yearning for freedom.
They stepped boldly onto the shores of a new world, and many of them fell to their knees to give thanks.
At decisive moments in our history and in quiet times around family tables, we are a people humbled and strengthened and blessed by prayer.
During the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress and George Washington, I call him the first George W. urged citizens to pray and to give thanks and to ask for God's protection.
Now let me ask you people, what in the world, when you listen to that, is there to fear?
Why would that frighten somebody like Madame Albright or William Jefferson Bloth Clinton or whoever else on the left that would profess being frightened?
There has to be a reason why they are fearful of this because that's what it is.
They're fearful if we start talking about God being on our side, God bless the America and so forth.
You know what I think it is?
I think their fear is that they actually believe that if we start talking about God being on our side, that we'll be no different than the enemy.
They think the enemy is a bunch of lunatics that have gone crazy over God.
And that's what they think you people in the South have done too.
And because they have this bias against it, they just, because these atheists are worse, agnostics, but they don't want any, they just, it's just everything they do is oriented from the circle of fear.
Madeleine Albright, afraid, what will they think of us if we say that God is on our side?
And that's a little diplo speak here that's not going to advance anything.
These are the kind of people I'm telling you, if they ever get back in power and in charge during these crucial times, it is going to be a disaster.
I had a brief time out.
I'll tell you when we come back about this bill out there in California to ban the word mom and dad from textbooks in California.
Yet, that's right.
California law would remove sex-specific terms from books and would mandate pro-homosexual lessons, like from mom and dad to sperm recipient and sperm donor.
And we are back.
You know, to some people, folks, God is a source of strength.
To others, God is a photo op.
I'll give you some examples.
George W. Bush, God's a source of strength.
Bill and Hillary, we walking in out of church with a Bible, God's a photo op.
You don't want to get too close to God, though, because Christianity.
And, you know, yeah, you can't, that's just bad.
That's even worse.
If God is a Christian God, you can't.
We're afraid of those people.
Try this.
Class envy is happening everywhere.
It's hitting everybody.
Bill Gates now says he wishes he wasn't so rich.
The corporate leader says he doesn't like the attention of being the world's richest man.
Bill, you keep pushing back the release of this new Windows operating system called Vista, and you may not have to worry about being rich.
Things are only going to be two years late.
Not that I care.
I don't use it, but I'm just saying it's they're in there they're running behind on it.
But Bill, another thing to do.
You know, people out there are hurting because of a gasoline price.
And they wanted to make, what's his name, Lee Raymond at ExxonMobil give back 400 million.
Gates' fortune is worth 50 bill.
Imagine what Gates could do for gas prices because he's a big philanthropist.
All right, from WorldNet Daily, a bill requiring students to learn about the contributions gays have made to society and that would remove sex-specific terms like mom and dad from textbooks has passed another hurdle on the way to becoming the law of the land in California.
Having already been approved by the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Bill 1437, which would mandate grades 1 through 12 by books accurately portraying the sexual diversity of our society, got the nod yesterday of the Senate Education Committee.
The bill also requires students to learn history and take history lessons on the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States.
That will become part of history if this bill becomes law.
The bill is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions of indoctrination that disregard all notions of the traditional family units.
And Karen England, Executive Director of Capital Resource Institute, she says this bill seeks to eliminate all stereotypes of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant.
You know who sponsors this bill?
Senator Sheila Keele, K-U-E-H-L.
Maybe it's cool.
She is a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda and the many lives of Dobie Gillis in the 1960s.
Were you old enough?
You watched Dobie Gillis was fun because of Bob Denver.
But he was Maynard G. Krebs.
But I remember, they've got a picture of her here in this story.
Zelda, I forget what her name was.
Anyway, that's going to become new history.
It's interesting on the day or two after we learn how horribly unprepared our students are learning geography.
Next, the curriculum is going to change to teach them the contributions of the gay, lesbian, and transgender communities, ladies and gentlemen, on the lives of Californians and all over the place.
Valerie Plame wants a book deal.
Yeah, three years ago, she was outed, of course, quote unquote.
She's shopping a book proposal among a small group of publishers.
Both people were granted anonymity because their publishing companies have signed non-disclosure agreements about the content of the proposal.
Don't you just love the smell of greed from a compassionate leftist when you wake up in the morning?
I mean, does anybody doubt what this is all about?
And when are we going to get on and investigate the outrageous profits of the coffee barons?
Have you seen Starbucks profit?
Their second quarter profit was up 27%.
That's absurd.
It says coffee.
This is coffee.
We're not even talking about oil.
And I'm looking for, yeah, here it is.
An accompanying story to the We Got to Get Moms and Dads Out of the Textbooks in California comes this.
This is from United Press International.
Lesbians have less distress with PMS.
Most women have physical and psychological changes in the premenstrual phase of the cycle, but only some experience distress, according to an Australian researcher, drawing on in-depth interviews with 36 British and 64 women, Australian women.
And, you know, we've heard stories about these in-depth interviews in the past.
They generally can end up in lawsuits.
Jane Usher, the director of the Gender Cultures and Health Research at the University of Western Sydney, argues that women's experience of distress or anger premenstrually is connected to the self-policing practices which women are expected to engage in order to fulfill their role as a good wife or mother.
Premenstrually, when many women feel more vulnerable and their repressed frustration or anger comes to the fore, their self-control is ruptured and they can lash out.
They want to withdraw from the caring role, often followed by increased self-surveillance leading to guilt, shame, and blaming of the body.
This woman is saying that this researcher is saying that women are nuts, but that lesbians are not as inclined to be nuts.
They're nuts during PMS, but they're less inclined.
Lesbians are less inclined to be nuts during PMS.
She says women in lesbian relationships were found to report less distress associated with pre-menstrual changes, greater acceptance on the part of their partner, and less self-policing.
Less self-policing.
Anybody, my ability to understand this has just expired.
Does somebody want to help me now understand this?
Dawn, you're a woman.
What does it mean when you hear me read that?
Well, I'm sorry.
Okay, she's not a lesbian either.
Never mind.
I can't ask her.
Usher concludes that the identification of self-poliefing.
Start again.
Concludes that the identification of self-policing is of particular concern for heterosexual women.
She's presenting her findings at an international conference for psychologists later this year.
Okay, I'll read the paragraph again.
If you didn't get it, premenstrually, when many women feel more vulnerable and their repressed frustration or anger comes to the fore.
See, you have to assume they're repressing constantly.
They're repressing anger, frustration, but it comes to the fore during the PMS period.
Their self-control is ruptured.
They lose self-control and they can lash out.
They want to withdraw from the caring role.
Look at describing Hillary, I think.
Craig in Washington, D.C., welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Good afternoon, Rush.
How are you doing?
Thank you, sir.
Very good, sir.
Thank you.
Yeah, I was calling in reference to your discussion about Madeleine Albright earlier.
I thought something that might be a little bit instructive on this topic is that some of her views globally, I was a student of hers at Georgetown University.
How long ago?
The late 80s.
And during that period, she taught a course called Modern Foreign Governments.
It was a comparative survey, and all the students at the time were required as part of the core curriculum to take the class.
And you could choose a different type of module.
I chose the communist module.
And so she taught a class that looked at the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Ethiopia.
And in the final class of the semester, she gave some of her personal thoughts.
And she preferenced her thoughts regarding Stalin with an acknowledgement that he was deliberately responsible for the murder of millions of people through collectivization and other policies, and that he's probably responsible for the deaths of about 40 million Soviets.
But that on balance, he was good for the country because he managed to get the country industrialized and pull the mass of Russia out of serfdom.
Were you surprised?
Shocked that she would actually come out and say it.
Well, wait a minute.
When's the last time you ever heard any leftists condemn Stalin or Lenin?
Walter Durante won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up all those.
The left refuses to, they cannot criticize these people.
They just can't do it.
On balance, of course, Stalin had to be good for his country.
I've never heard him criticize Stalin.
In fact, even during the Cold War, and I want to get your reaction to this, Craig, after the break, which is coming up.
Even in the Cold War during the 80s and late 80s, they were still defending the place.
And when the wall fell, they were still defending the place, still defending the Soviet Union.
It still didn't have its full chance to show its beautiful potential and so forth.
They never put these people down.
Okay, back to Craig in Washington, D.C. We're running out of time in that segment.
And, you know, I'm not trying to be facetious.
I can understand your being in shock.
How old were you when you were the student, her student?
I was 19.
Oh, well, I can totally understand because you hadn't lived long enough.
I've heard these people never criticize Stalin.
And I would have to say, I was clearly categorized as a right-winger even back then.
Maybe even more so than now.
I would probably be appropriately described as a neocon even 20 years ago.
But what was shocking is that she didn't, the way she taught the courses, she didn't really lead up to that conclusion.
She was fairly honest in her appraisal of everything that the communists were responsible for in the Soviet Union.
And then to all of a sudden say, well, you know, but despite that, on balance, they were pretty decent.
They were good for the country.
It just doesn't make any sense.
It was a bit of a current.
It does make sense when you understand the people saying it, when you understand liberals, when you understand who they are.
You've been around long enough to know that there's not a dictator they don't sidle up to and take compassion on.
Castro, Chavez, even Kim Jong-il and President Hu.
These people are the Soviet Union was a special thing to them.
And of course, she's going to detail what travesties that were committed, but she's not going to really condemn them, and she's not going to condemn the system that was responsible.
She's going to end up praising the guy because he industrialized the nation or moved it forward or whatever.
He just did what he had to do at the time.
That's right.
That was the gist of her comments.
He wasn't evil.
He was just misunderstood.
Yet George W. Bush, they will try to destroy and accuse of things that Stalin has actually done, where Bush, I mean, has not done anything at all.
Well, I'm glad you called because I'm happy for people to hear that that's what she was teaching back in the late 80s in Georgetown.
Does anything else stand out in her class, something like that?
No, I mean, she was, you know, the other two countries that we looked at were Czechoslovakia and Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is hard to defend by anybody's standards, and she didn't make any attempt.
And with respect to Czechoslovakia, I think that she felt that her family had lost a personal stake, given that they were pretty much run out of the country.
But no, she, you know, like I say, there was not a lot that was in the curriculum of that particular course.
And as we were looking at the program that would lead you to think that she was going to come out and say this about Stalin, she actually had a fairly dim view of the prospects of Gorbachev succeeding in what he was trying to do.
And she even brought in members of the opposition parties from the Soviet Union at the time to speak to our class.
What was her reasoning for the ultimate failure of Gorbachev and his ideas?
I think she ⁇ it's kind of the Samuel Huntington argument that once you start to unleash the forces of freedom, that you get a rising expectations dynamic, and people aren't satisfied with just getting a little bit, that they want the whole kidding caboo.
They want to be able to get it.
Exactly right.
So Gorbachev.
Now, see, but take it further.
Gorbachev's problem was introducing a little freedom.
If he had just kept the iron fist on, he might have been able to hold that great country together.
Well, that's right.
That's the lesson of 1989, and that is the repression works.
The Chinese did it.
The others didn't.
You know, if you take the lid off of the pot, it's good.
Well, Gorbachev actually.
He had no choice because the third world economy.
One of the best-kept secrets of this whole Cold War era was what a bereft economy the place was.
But that didn't get reported either.
Their great attempts to feed their population.
That's what was reported in the news in this country.
The great efforts that were made by the Soviet leaders to take great care of their citizens and so forth.
It was sickening at the time.
I'm telling you, it was absolutely sickening.
It's the same thing that's happening here as we try to appease this enemy and blame ourselves for creating them and provoking them and keeping them all fired up against us.
Anyway, Eric in Carney, Nebraska.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, Rush.
Dittos.
Thank you.
It's been a long time and been trying to get through several times.
Glad I finally did.
Glad you did, too.
I just wanted to kind of go back to the Madeline Albright thing again.
It's actually kind of funny to hear someone on the left actually say it.
You know, what she basically says is, well, everybody talks about God, but George Bush actually believes what he's saying about God.
No, what she said was that she thinks George Bush believes what God is saying to him.
That's crucial.
These people think if you think it's perfectly okay for Hillary Clinton to have a seance and get through to Eleanor Roosevelt, but for Bush, Madeline Albright, Bush has never said God talks to him.
I don't know.
I don't think he has.
I don't think that's the point of it.
I think it goes the other way around.
I think Bush is confident what he is praying to God.
I mean, I'm sure he gets, we all do who pray.
We do think that we have, we receive inspiration and so forth.
We do believe we're heard.
Bush believes he's heard when he prays.
Why else do it?
But for Madeline Albright, that conjures up tremendous fear.
But like I said earlier, there are people who believe in God as photo ops.
With photo ops, there are people that actually believe in God.
And there's just too much fear to believe in God, especially God of Christianity.
That's the worst thing that you can do for these people.
It does.
But it just seems funny.
I mean, it points out the cynicism of the left.
Everybody talks about it.
Go back and read George Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation.
Go read his first inaugural address.
My gosh, if Madeline Albright went back and read those things, she'd be stunned.
She wouldn't believe it.
Maybe she has read it and just thinks it's irrelevant anymore.
She can't deny it.
It's there.
Tim in Carlsbad, California.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, Tim, formerly of San Francisco, many time callers.
Thank you, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, I heard Madeline Albright on NPR yesterday, and she was talking about.
What is she got a book or something out there?
Yeah, yeah.
No wonder she's all she's all over the place when she doesn't have a book, so I didn't you don't want me to plug it, though, do you?
Yeah, I won't say the name unless I need to.
Go ahead.
Doesn't matter what.
She was called The Mighty and the Almighty.
Oh, that explains everything.
There you go.
Well, you know, I think she's trying to wrest control of God or whatever from what she perceives as a right-wing monopoly on it.
And she's going about it a pretty stupid way.
Yeah, and the point I made to your screener was: I think, though, really what it is, it's particularly cynical on her part because I think she's trying to actually cash in, sort of capitalize, if you will, on a popular theme in American culture now, sort of a resurgence of religion that I've definitely seen.
And I think that she saw a way to make some money off it.
What do you think, Rush?
I don't know because I haven't read the book, but I can't imagine if Madeline Albright is actually engaged here in outreach to the Christian community, somebody at the Democratic Party is going to fix her.
I know Howard Dean said they needed to do it, but she's not.
Yeah, I know they have to talk.
Yeah, but I don't know based on what she's saying here in these interviews.
I haven't read the book, so it's really not fair to comment on the book.
But based on what she's saying here in these interviews, this is not outreach.
She's insulting the president because of the relationship he professes to have with God, and she's distorting it.
And she's saying that she's upset with the notion that God's on our side.
I'm sorry, this is not outreach.
This is not trying to co-opt or cash in on the so-called religion.
Besides, it's not populist anyway.
People who are religious are deeply religious.
They're people of faith, that it's not based on populism.
It's based on things above and beyond politics and so forth.
Now, the people like Madeline Albright may think she's making a populist move here.
I really, without having read the book, it would be unfair.
I can only comment on what these soundbites say.
And it doesn't sound to me like, it does sound like a Howard Dean design program, but what's one of those worth?
One of my all-time favorite tunes, not in the top five, maybe the top 25, T-Rex, bang your gong, 800-282-2882.
I think, folks, it would help all of you to understand, all of us to understand Madeline Albright, to think of her this way.
When you hear her, she was lecturing her class, teaching her class at Georgetown in the late 80s, when you hear on these television shows talking about foreign policy as these leaders around the world, you have to understand that Madeline Albright and people like her put themselves in the shoes of the dictators, not the oppressed, not the victims.
So when she examines and analyzes Stalin, she sees herself in Stalin's shoes because she puts herself up on the leadership level.
She is among the elite.
Stalin is a fellow elite.
So she looks at history from Stalin's point of view.
That is the only way, other than sheer insanity, that you can look at Stalin's murder of 40 million people and still conclude, well, he just did what he had to do.
He actually was a net benefit for the Soviet Union because he industrialized the nation.
So you have, and that's the drive-by media, the Democratic Party, leftists throughout the Cold War always put themselves in the shoes of these dictators.
I don't care if they're not in the Soviet Union.
Go to any part of the world.
They put themselves in the shoes of Castro or Hugo Chavez.
And they imagine Castro as this beleaguered up against the rest of the world who would like to kill him, who has tried to kill him.
And he's got a poor embargo, and he can't do, he's just trying to do everything he can, but he's just doing the best he can.
They don't have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of the oppressed when they examine dictatorships and tyrannies.
So another way of saying this is that if Madeline Albright were Stalin, she would be Stalin.
She would be among the leaders of tyranny, not among the poor masses.
Yet she's a liberal claiming to have this unique bond with the poor masses.
You know what you people ought to do?
George Will, a column that's out, I read it today in the New York Post.
It might have been out yesterday in the Washington Post.
I'm not sure.
But he just, he skewers the whole, you know, John Kenneth Galbraith just died, 98 years old.
The father of modern liberalism.
And you really need to read what George Bush wrote about, or George Will wrote about Galbraith, because it establishes where this condescension and arrogance that liberals have for people came from.
That you're not smart enough to own your own businesses and you're not smart enough to work in a free market with systems because you don't have what it takes.
This whole notion that you aren't capable came from the elitist John Kenneth Galbraith and his book that became almost the Bible.
And it survives today, this thinking.
In the area of foreign policy, you have Madeline Albright, who, when she looks around the world and looks at these world leaders, she sees the world from their shoes, from their eyes, through their eyes.
And that's how you have to understand her.
Now, look at it this way.
And I want to associate this with the Shelby Steele piece that we shared a couple days ago, talking about this collective American guilt that we have over our racial sins of the past.
Even though Joseph Stalin killed 40 million people, he was good.
He was a net benefit to the Soviet Union.
He just did what he had to do.
On the other hand, in American classrooms today, in multicultural classes, in history classes, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are bad.
They are indefensible, and they are illegitimate because they had slaves.
They didn't kill anybody.
They didn't kill the slaves.
But Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both white.
Stalin was white too, but he was a good liberal.
He's a good communist.
So Madeline Albright can sit there and extol the virtues, the unbalanced virtues of Stalin and probably Lenin, while at the same time, I don't know that she specifically has, but you know your kids have probably come home and told you, Daddy, George Washington is illegitimate because he had slaves.
Is it true, Daddy?
Is it true?
Is it true?
And so the founders of this country not worth their reputation is not the American left.
Chris in Omaha, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
Great show today.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to go back to last hour, and sorry, I feel a little irrelevant, but, you know, since I'm speaking about a liberal...
What do you mean you feel irrelevant?
Oh, I guess I was going to speak in terms of Joe Biden's comments on Zacharias Osawi's prison sentence.
Where he hopes he's tortured?
I'm sorry, what?
Where he hopes he's tortured?
Exactly.
And there was something a little strange about that.
I mean, you rightly pointed out that, you know, when a liberal tries to okay, look, what's going on?
Chris, what's going on?
You got a girlfriend over there?
You're having trouble doing two things at once?
I was listening to your Madeline Albright stuff, and I listened a lot.
Turn it off.
Look, it's hard to be brilliant yourself when you're listening to me be brilliant in the background.
Absolutely.
Well, here's the point, Rush.
There was something very strange about his comments when he referred to good old red-blooded American convicts.
Let me find that.
What soundbite was that?
I'm going through the number eight.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
He said, put him in there.
If you want to say how to punish somebody, put Alzarcawi, he means Masawi, in a prison with a bunch of red-blooded American criminals, criminals.
That's right.
I miss that.
I miss that.
Yeah, now, you know, far be it from Biden to talk about, you know, red-blooded American heroes in our armed forces, you know, to do something good for America.
But, you know, let's, I mean, it just is very strange.
It's almost as if he now loves the criminal element.
He's a liberal anyway.
He doesn't find anything that's wrong with a criminal element to begin with.
They're just misunderstood.
Poor socioeconomic circumstances.
But he's, yeah, and they're trying to extend the vote to these guys.
You know, Hillary's trying to get the felon vote out there, so he's going to write good red-blooded American criminals.
I mean, that's the new Democratic Party outreach group.
But what he's really hoping for here is that these great old red-blooded American criminals torture Masawi.
And it's a soundbite what we played from last night's hardball.
And Chris Manthe is sort of chuckling along with him on this, thinking of, you know, this is after we've built up all this goodwill with the Misawi trial because we found him guilty, but we're not going to kill him.
We're going to put him in prison for life.
We showed the world the beauty of our system, our compassion and so forth.
Well, fine and dandy, but if this guy goes to this prison and all this stuff happens, and it won't, by the way, it's very secure prison, he won't be talking or seeing anybody.
But if it did happen, it would destroy all these good vibes that we have created with this trial around the world.
But I just wanted to point out, here's these guys condemning us for torture, hoping it happens to somebody involved in 9-11.
You figure it out.
Got a great question from a caller from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, my hometown named Erickson.
Industrialize the Soviet Union.
What the hell would you buy there?
Ever?
Maybe some vodka, but you can make that in your bathtub.
Or is that gym?
▲
Export Selection