All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
August 18, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Hi, folks, how are you?
We spoke yesterday of uh the animating characteristic of the American left, and that is Bush hatred.
And we have shining examples of it to lead off today's program on an issue of great importance and substance.
Nice to be with you.
It's Friday.
Here we go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Right over.
And you are listening to List the Living Legend Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and open line Friday.
This is a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
Open line Friday when we go to the phones.
The program is yours.
Monday through Thursday.
We only talk about things I care about.
Unless we get a wacko lib, and then we put them up there, whatever they want to say.
But on Friday, if there are things you want to discuss that you haven't heard discussed, you have a question, a comment.
Feel free to uh utilize this tremendous once-a-week opportunity offered to you by your benevolent dictator, me.
Uh 800 282-2882.
Let's go to the audio sound bites and get started.
This is the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez yesterday, after the ruling by um U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on the terrorist surveillance program.
Today, a district court judge in Michigan ruled that the program was unlawful.
We disagree with the decision, respectfully disagree with the decision of the judge, and we have appealed the decision.
And there is a stay in place, and so we will continue to utilize the program to ensure that America is safer.
Now, earlier this morning, or just not not too long ago, the president, and we're working on this soundbite now.
The uh the president was asked a question, or was asked a question and gave an answer about this.
Very forceful answer, uh, very very pointed.
Uh, and uh then I watching Fox and John Gibson went to David Ignatius, uh useful idiot, the Washington Post, who said this is uh incredible, uh just unusual to see a a president so uh forceful and and so open about a pending judicial matter, a matter under judicial review.
Yeah, well, it's about time, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
The president got in a game on this, and uh, well, that's that's unfair to say he's been trying to explain this program to people, and I don't know how long, but explaining it isn't gonna matter to the left because that's not what the opportunity is to them.
We have media hyperventilating here with joy over a defeat, a setback, a blow to Bush.
Here, I don't even gonna tell you who the people are, it doesn't matter.
They're the drive-by media.
Listen to this.
We begin with a major blow to President Bush's war on terror.
Stop the tape just a second.
That was Kate Snow, brilliant info, babe ABC.
Do you note President Bush's war on terror?
Not America's war on terror, President Bush's war on cue that up to the top, Ed.
Let me know when it's ready to go.
We'll start it again so people can hear it and uh hear what I talked over when I was asking you to stop the tape.
President Bush's war on terror.
Yes, it's just one man fighting the war on terror.
They don't know how right they are, and they don't know just how silly and stupid and dangerous they sound.
Here it is in total.
The Bush administration suffered a major legal defeat today.
A major defeat for the Bush administration.
Struck down President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.
A stunning review.
Stop the tape.
I can't even listen to the whole thing without stopping it.
It is not a domestic eavesdropping program.
That was Bob Schiefer of uh CBS.
Cue it back up to the top end, the very top of this thing with Kate Snow.
Struck down President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.
Pure journalistic malpractice and irresponsibility.
They know that's not what this is.
They know that this is properly called the uh uh terrorist surveillance program.
We're not spying on Americans, Bob.
Here is let's see if I can get through this without blowing another gasket.
The Bush administration suffered a major legal defeat today.
A major defeat for the Bush administration.
Struck down President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.
A stunning rebuke of the Bush administration.
The Bush administration was dealt a setback.
This is a stinging setback for the president, a clear setback for the Bush administration.
It's a major setback for the Bush administration.
What does the federal judge's ruling that the NSA spying program is illegal mean for President Bush?
Oh, are they just panting away?
We have another montage here.
Let's see, we've got Jonathan Turley, Jack Cafferty at CNN, Larry Kudlow at CNBC, and an author named James Bamford talking about the president.
The president could well have committed a federal crime.
Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in this country without a warrant.
It means President Bush violated his oath of office.
He's been lying to us.
Will this be yet another ground for impeachment?
It's a criminal action.
We have a president here who uh is probably in about the same position that Richard Nixon was in after the Watergate period.
This is pure irresponsibility.
This is nothing but abject lies.
There were members of Congress brought in on this program.
Um let me try to put some of this in perspective for you here, since uh, if your source on this has been the drive-by media, uh, you have to be totally confused and misled.
This opinion is a joke.
It is an utter joke.
It is an opinion written with emotion and not legal reasoning nor substance.
You have here a civil rights activist who was appointed to the court by Jimmy Carter, this uh Diggs babe, uh J Anna Diggs Taylor.
And she uh I I tell you what a lot of people think, and I happen to agree with them, a lot of legal scholars I happen to trust, that the uh the the Sixth Circuit is going to overturn this.
I'm surprised it hasn't been overturned already, but it's gonna be overturned on the issue of standing.
Now, uh, before a judge gets to the substance of uh the issues in a lawsuit, she has to determine whether or not the plaintiffs are legitimately in court.
Do they have standing to bring this case?
If there is no harm to the people who claim uh or to the plaintiffs, no harm to the people who bring the case, including likely future harm.
If there's none of that, then they have no case.
But the judge wanted to get to the substantive issues, and she wanted to decide them in favor of the ACLU in favor of care, in favor of uh Greenpeace and all the rest of these wacko liberal groups.
So what she did was massage the uh the standing requirement.
Oh, by the way, speaking of that, I've been getting emails from massage therapists say, don't call us massage babes.
We're not hot babes with oil, we're licensed massage therapists.
I stand corrected.
I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record on that.
I'll no longer refer to you as massage babes, unless, of course, I happen to run into one who is a legitimate lasage babe and is not licensed, and I'll refer to her that way.
Anyway, what this judge did was just literally massage the standing requirements to save the case.
And then after she had massaged all that, then she goes in with her wrecking ball, ruling that the president and the National Security Agency violated the first and fourth amendments, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and uh title three.
Uh if if if I mean her analysis here is so thin, and it's embarrassing, folks.
It's embarrassing.
The woman's not qualified to be on the court.
She got appointed, she got confirmed, but this is uh political hack on the court here.
Uh it is a political act by a federal judge in the midst of a war in our country.
Now, the reputation that she's uh gaining out there among her buds in the drive-by media, she's bright, and she's highly respected and so forth.
Uh reject this totally.
Uh have here also a uh a summary of quotes offered by various Democrats on this ruling.
Now you couple this with their assault on Walmart.
Joe Biden and the Democrats have actually now declared war on Walmart as a campaign issue coming up this November.
And they're claiming that Walmart does harm to the middle class.
Frankly, turning reality upside down.
When you hear what Pelosi and Reed and Feingold and Rockefeller and Carrie and Leahy and Feinstein, Feinstein and Elliott Engel, a representative from New York, are saying about this.
They are grave diggers.
They are digging their own grave.
Back with more just a second on Open Line Friday.
Stay with us.
Times of palpable depression and fear.
Chaos, tumult, confusion, and even the good times, Rush Limbaugh on Open Line Friday.
We have the two clips from George W. Bush's uh press conference today at uh Camp David.
Here is the first of the two.
How do you respond, sir to opponents who say that this ruling is really the first nail in the coffin of your administration's legal strategy in the war on terror?
I would say that those who uh herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.
You might remember last week, working with people in Great Britain, we disrupted a plot.
People trying to come and kill people.
This country of ours is at war.
And we must give those whose responsibility is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.
President continued turned it around on the Democrats.
I strongly disagree with that decision.
Strongly disagree.
That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately.
And I believe uh our appeals will be upheld.
I made my position clear about this war on terror.
If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they're calling.
And so I made my position clear.
It'd be interesting to see how other policymakers react.
Right.
Well, they don't have any ideas, Mr. President.
That's the whole point.
There are no solutions offered by your political opponents, only criticism and hatred and a desire for your political death.
And that is what animates them and motivates them, and that is what they are attempting to secure.
And you can hear it in the media montages we played earlier.
They are breathlessly panting, hoping for an opportunity to impeach you, sir.
That is what is going on.
Listen to some of these reactions to this ruling.
And don't forget this judge, ladies and gentlemen, is a judge, as we mentioned yesterday, who tried to hijack an affirmative action case.
The University of Michigan law school.
She was not the assigned judge.
She tried to take it away from the judge who was assigned the case because she suspected that he was not really big on affirmative action.
This woman is a political hack and she is a disgrace.
But today she is a hero to the American left, who have such a contorted view of reality that one must assume they are in the early stages of madness.
Nancy Pelosi, quote, the decision by a federal judge at the president's electronic surveillance program is unconstitutional, is a repudiation of Mr. Bush's dangerous assertion that he has unlimited authority to conduct wiretapping activities in the United States.
That's from her press release yesterday.
Ms. Pelosi, uh, the danger that this country faces is epitomized by people like you and Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Party who are willing to undermine this nation's security for pure political purposes.
You cannot win elections.
You cannot get your power back that you consider to be a birthright, and so you have to take it out on your political opponents rather than asking yourself, where have you lost touch with the American people?
Because in your stupid little head, you don't think it's possible for you to have lost touch with the American people.
He does not have unlimited authority to conduct wiretapping activities in the United States, and members of your very own party in Congress were brought in on this and know full well that the program was going on.
Senator Dingy Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats, quote, Today's ruling is the latest example of how the Bush administration has jeopardized our efforts in the war on terror.
Do I need to read any more of what this dunderhead has said?
The administration's decision to ignore the Constitution and the Congress has come at the expense of the security of the American people.
I I want to go back.
This is the man who applauded his defeat of the Patriot Act.
This is the man who is these people are digging a grave.
I don't care what any poll shows.
I don't care what these generic polls or who favors this or that coming up in November, this kind of garbage coupled with an all-out assault on a great American corporation, Walmart, which serves the very constituency the Democrats claim to represent.
You're going to pay for this, folks, and we are going to see to it.
Continuing with Denji Harry, instead of being five years into an effective strategy, we're back at square one.
We now have the opportunity to take a new direction.
It's time for the administration to work with the Congress to develop effective tools to defeat terrorists.
Senate Democrats stand ready to work with the administration and congressional Republicans toward that goal.
Tell me, Senator Reed, have there been any attacks on this country since 9-11?
Have there been?
You Democrats are running around worried about the ports all over the place.
Ports are not protected.
If that's the case, how come the terrorists aren't utilizing the ports to blow us to smithereens?
Back to square one.
Back to square one is where we're going to be if you people ever end up back in power.
Here is Russ Feingold, who I happen to think, by the way, is the most likely of all the Democrat candidates to get their presidential nomination in 2008.
Quote, today's district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program.
It is not illegal.
Just because a mad cap hack political person sitting on a federal bench claims it is.
There are countless other legal opinions who state the obvious.
Have we forgotten previous presidents have done just this, exactly this, and even more.
You know, Victor Davis Hanson was on Cavuto yesterday, and I watched it.
We've got the sound bites from it, and I was ecstatic to watch it because he cited some of the things that have been explained to you on this program, what Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War.
Nothing comes close in this administration to that.
FDR, Franklin Delvando Roosevelt, these people's hero, these people's icon, has done far more, did far more in the area of violations of rights and so forth than George Bush has even contemplated.
At any rate, Feingold says the president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress.
We all want our government to monitor.
Well, let me tell you what's going to happen.
Mr. Feingold and the rest of you, let's say that elsewhere in the legal system, this is not overturned.
Let's say for some un inconceivable reason, the Sixth Circuit upholds this wacko judge in the Eastern District of Michigan.
You know what's going to happen, sir?
It's going to go right back to Congress and it's going to be written into law before you guys have a chance to take over the place.
And then you're going to be faced with the prospect of dismantling it.
If you win the House in 08 or 06, and you disagree with this, then you're going to have to go back and totally make this illegal.
You're going to have to totally tear it down, and you're going to def you just you're going to doom yourself for 08 if you do that.
In a way, this ruling is sort of a uh when you strip away and ignore the the utter political outrageousness of it and the national security outrageousness of it.
If you look at the the uh possibilities in terms of a timeline here of the Democrats end up dying on this one way or another.
Where did I leave off with uh fine gold?
Ah, the administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the president's power grab.
The president is commander-in-chief, the same office that you seek, you idiot.
The same office you seek, and nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the judiciary commander-in-chief powers.
If there's a power grab going on, it's by liberal judges throughout the judiciary system in this country, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And we're gonna make sure the country knows about this.
You people, the day of you're getting ray getting away with all of these lies and misleading rhetoric are over, and they've been over for a long time.
You just don't realize it.
Here is Jay Rockefeller.
West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, top Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee said the decision shows the executive branch needs more external reviews.
The administration's wrongly convinced it can run the country without Congress or oversight.
This is their tragic failure, and the courts understand it.
Has everybody forgotten that Bush brought members of Congress in on this?
to bring everybody in a debate in public is to expose it to countless leaks which already happened anyway.
The real culprit here my friends is the New York Times and whoever leaked it to them from We got a brief pause here.
We'll be back and continue in just a second.
On a roll, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
The EIB network and Rush Limbaugh on Open Line Friday will be getting to your phone calls in just a moment.
Senator Pat Leahy, in his reaction to the uh federal court decision yesterday on the NSA spy program, this has become another unfortunate example of how White House misdirection, arrogance, and mismanagement have needlessly complicated our goal of protecting the American people.
I can't think of one thing these people have offered to protect the American people.
It's just the opposite.
The activities that they're engaged in, the words that they say, the uh policies that they advocate regarding Abu Grab and such uh places have emboldened the enemy.
And there's no two ways around this, folks.
The Democratic Party, the liberals in this country, have emboldened the enemy, and if you are offended by that and if you're a liberal and you just tell me how it'd be any different if you weren't purposely emboldened.
Or if you actually put it better this way, let's say you wanted to embolden the enemy.
How would your actions and words today be any different than what they already are?
You're doing everything you can to undermine the efforts underway that have been successful, by the way, to make the country safer.
In fact, you know what we ought to do?
We ought to turn that phrase around and just judge decision make you people feel safer.
Does this liberal Democrat judge and her decision make you feel safer today?
Or do you feel more protected?
Do you feel more protected?
You actually feel like the government's spying on you?
Do you think the government's listening in on your phone calls George Bush to find out what you're going to get at Blockbuster tonight?
Or wherever else you're going to go, what are you going to do?
You think that's what they're doing?
Do you actually feel safer, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of this decision?
Do you feel safer listening to these pinheads?
These glittering jewels of colossal ignorance of the Democratic Party give their learned analysis of the decision.
Pat Lahey, I have always believed the Bush-Chani warrantless domestic spying program violated our laws.
You ought to know you have leaked information when you were on the Senate Intelligence Committee once before about an operation plan for Libya.
You ought to know about breaking the law.
That's why we call him Senator Leakey Leahy, Senator DePenns.
The problem has been the Bush-Chaney administration's insistence on doing it illegally without checks and balances.
To prevent the abuse of the rights of America's even Senator Feinstein.
The court ruling upholds the basic principle that even the president is not outside the law, and that he has exceeded his constitutional authority by implementing a warrantless domestic surveillance uh program.
Well, just check your heroes, uh uh FDR, Harry Truman, find out some of the things that they did during times of war.
Now you go to the Washington Post editorial today, and I was surprised, I was stunned when I read this.
Today's Washington Post editorial, just one excerpt says it all, unfortunately.
The decision yesterday by Federal District Court in Detroit striking down the NSA's program is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting.
The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines.
But as a piece of judicial work, that is as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA program, her opinion will not be helpful.
So in the terms of um the Washington Post, as far as they're willing to go, they destroyed this judge yesterday or today in their editorial.
They destroy this judge's reasoning and her legal scholarship while these Democrat sycophants sit around and mouth their predictable words, all oriented toward a political outcome and viewed through a political prism.
A couple more sound bites on this.
Jonathan Turley on MSNBC last night.
The uh question, conservatives are already making hay out of the fact that Judge Taylor was an appointee of President Clinton.
Where does the case go next legally?
And in following it.
We're in order here, number four.
Uh, and in following it, do we have to follow the personal politics of the judges, or are there any judges who are just judges anymore?
That's what's really distasteful.
You know, this is not the first judge to rule against the administration.
But every time a judge rules against the administration, uh they're either too democratic or they're too tall or too short, or they're Pisces.
I mean, all this spin, this effort to personalize it is really doing a great injustice to our system.
Really, Mr. Turley, is that what the judiciary is above criticism?
Is that right?
We can sit here and try to destroy a president for five years and that's fine.
We can do all that all they want, but we can't criticize idiots who happen to also be judges.
The judiciary is above it.
Nobody's criticizing her because she's a Pisces, and nobody is criticizing her because she's uh uh too democratic or too tall or too short.
I have no clue what she looks like beyond the facial picture I've seen, the head shut.
Every bit of criticism I've heard about this woman does tend to indicate that she has not rendered a scholarly opinion.
It is relevant she's a Carter appointee.
It is relevant she attempted to hijack a affirmative action case so that she can have it outcome the way she wanted it to outcome.
Next question.
Do we really think the country would dissolve into a ball of jello if the courts threw out the national security rationale for wiretapping?
And we ever have we ever noticed this in the past when previous administrations have cited national security of the most urgent import.
Do you recall the country ever going out of business or the safety of the citizens ever just vanishing?
There is this uh appearance of let's keep fear alive, you know, and and you know, how we read the Constitution will depend upon how close we are to the London arrests.
That's really immaterial.
I mean, in a country like ours, it is as important, if not more important, how we do things as it is what we do, and we can't uphold the system of law, the rule of law if we violate it.
Uh previous presidents have.
Uh, Mr. Turley, you're just supposedly a historian and a scholar and a lawyer.
Uh you know damn well what this president's done pales in comparison to previous presidents.
Uh and at least that we know of.
We don't know what all presidents have done in this area because some of them in Democrats and none of it was leaked.
To the uh drive-by media.
But what is this?
And you know, how we read the Constitution will depend how close we are to the London arrests.
It sounds suspiciously like the Lib Brits.
They're over there wringing their hands, worried that maybe the guy who gave up the goods in the operation was tortured.
Oh no, is this going to destroy it?
No, it won't destroy you.
But a terrorist act, hijacking ten airplanes and blowing them up in midair over the Atlantic Ocean would do far greater damage than finding out it was going to happen and stopping it.
There is a there there is a this this this this rage and hatred has literally sent poison chemicals through the brains of these people.
I remember well listening to Turley uh during the administration of Clinton and the uh Monica Lewinsky and impeachment sages.
Very reasonable.
Didn't come across as partisan at all.
He's undergone a 180 as far as my memory is concerned.
to the phones we go.
This is uh John in Lansing, Michigan.
Hello, sir, and welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Major diddles, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you.
Um I'm calling in concerns to this whole uh blow that was served to America from this judge.
Um I was a naval intelligence for four years when I was in the service.
And I kind of try my dang dangness to keep up on exactly what some of these observations or surveillance uh bills are that are going through.
And it aggravates me that here we are again, liberal media and liberalism is thriving on misinformation to where they're catering and tailoring the news stories just to make the uneducated fearful about what this bill really entails.
And that's that's something that really aggravates me is that's right.
There it's it's it's you're exactly right, because it fits the pattern.
Bush is the enemy.
Yeah, and they're sitting there, Rush, and they're they're just they're not informing the people exactly what the parameters of this bill is.
You know, the the whole setup on this bill or this whole surveillance is people that are suspected terrorists, affiliated with Al Qaeda, that are possibly calling out of the country to areas where Al Qaeda is known to operate, but they they keep forgetting to let people know that.
They they want to make everybody feel and believe that all it's everybody they're listening to me talk to my mom about what I'm making for dinner and and where I'm going or what I do when I read one.
The re the real irony here is the program works.
It obviously has worked, and yet here these guys are talking about we're back to square one, we're violating American people's rights, we're not safer.
I ask you again, does this judge's ruling make you feel safer?
The Democrats would have you believe that it should.
This program was utilized to uh track down the uh London terror plot just last week.
Another thing uh about this, we've had we've had security analysts uh who are now retired call here of call this program, and they've told us the uh the incredible restrictions they are under when when utilizing this program uh and and how it it it's it's just not a bunch of people,
voyeurs and whatever, sitting in a room checking in on your phone calls to find out what you're frankly, these liberals' lives are so boring anyway, it wouldn't uh it wouldn't entertain people for very long if they did surveil what these people.
I hear people talking like this.
What do they got to hide?
Uh in addition to, you know, what political constituency are they attempting to serve?
Thanks for the call out there, John.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
I want to give you an abject lesson here on Open Line Friday of how news is manufactured and created and produced in this country.
I'm watching Fox News channel right now, John Gibson on the air at an odd time, must be big time vacation schedule, is interviewing Bill Frist, who's obviously at some county fair somewhere, sitting in front of a corndog sign.
Uh and the subject is there a problem for Republicans losing the security moms?
Now, where does that come from?
Well, I'm holding it right here.
Formerly nicotine stained fingers.
It is a Washington Post story today.
Republicans losing the security moms.
It's by our old buddy Jim Vandehae.
However, I read the story, and the headline writer obviously didn't.
Because the headline is as misleading as possible.
Let me read to you the story, portions of it to illustrate my point.
Married women with children, these security moms, whose concerns about terrorism made them an essential part of Republican victories in 2002 and 2004.
Who who labels these people?
Security moms, soccer moms, NASCAR dads.
See what they think of you people?
Everybody's a member of a group.
Nobody's an individual.
At any rate, are taking flight.
This married women with children are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats.
Appear likely.
Appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats.
The elections, according to polls and interviews.
Oh, a story based on polls and hopes and dreams of the drive by media.
This critical group of swing voters, who are an especially significant factor in many of the most competitive suburban districts on which control of Congress will hinge, is more inclined to vote Democrat than at any point since September 11th, 2001, according to data compiled for the Washington Post by the Pew Research Center.
But listen to this.
So far, what do you think?
After having read this far in the story in the headline, that's over.
Married women with children deserting the Republicans.
They don't feel safe.
They feel threatened.
Republicans are scaring them to death.
They don't think the Republicans have what it takes to protect them and their kids anymore, right?
That's that's what you would think if that's all you read of this story.
Married mothers said an interview is here in Clintonville, Ohio.
Which is where the story is dated.
Clintonville, Ohio.
It just had to go out and find Clintonville, Ohio.
Married mothers said in interviews here that they remain concerned about national security and the ability of Democrats to keep them safe from terrorist strikes.
But surveys indicate Republicans are not benefiting from this phenomenon as they have before.
Do you understand what just happened here in this story?
It is 180 degrees out of phase.
Married women with children, security moms, concerns about terrorism, are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats.
Married mothers said on interviews here, they remain concerned about national security and the ability of Democrats to keep them safe.
The story is nobody trusts the Democrats, including the security moms.
But somehow, according to our polls at the Washington Post, the Republicans aren't going to benefit from this.
Then we go to page three of this story.
In its latest poll of the general public conducted after the news from London broke, Pew found a majority voicing concerns that Democrats were too weak on terrorism, the precise charge Republicans have made over the past ten days.
Yet an even larger majority said they fear Republicans would involve the United States in too many military operations.
In the latest Pew survey, only two percent of respondents cited it as the top issue they want to hear Canada's discuss.
Terrorism.
Okay, so only two percent care about it, if you can believe that.
Republicans losing the security moms, yet the story is a majority voicing concerns Democrats are too weak on terrorism.
There is your drive-by media, ladies, and it the whole thing gets picked up and discussed on Fox based on the headline.
So the New York Times sets the agenda for all kinds of uh of other news agents.
Well, this is the Washington Post, but the Post and Times both do this kind of thing.
This this is as misleading.
I guess let me see if I can sum this up.
I can sum this up.
Democrats still are not trusted to do protect security moms and their kids.
Democrats still not trusted in the war on terror, but somehow Republicans aren't benefiting from it in drive-by media polls.
And so we get a headline, Republicans losing the security moms.
You just have to laugh.
James in Virginia Beach.
Virginia, welcome to the program, sir.
It's uh Rush thanks uh for yesterday exposing the background of the Judge Taylor.
Yes.
And I'll thank you for exposing her first to me.
Thank you, sir.
Got a question.
Can the ACLU just shop around until they find a judge who agrees with their position on anything and then select that judge to enter to make a decision?
You know, I need to ask somebody about that.
I had the same question, uh, James.
I know exactly what you're asking.
The question was yesterday, why go to Michigan for this?
Well, it's obvious to me they went to a court where this judge happens to sit and rule.
Why try this case in Michigan?
Um, the ACLU lawyers in this case are Muslims.
Did you know that?
The A the ACLU lawyers in this case are Muslims.
Are they c yes they're Muslims, according to a Debbie Schlossel column from January 18th?
It's amazing who these people are in this lawsuit.
That's a good question.
I gotta find that out for you, James.
▲
Export Selection