All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
September 27, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay.
So T.O. is going to make a statement to the press here at any moment, ladies and gentlemen, in front of his home.
Explain all this.
All right.
My take on that is if T.O.'s going to be the one making a statement, then the story is going to be there was no suicide attempt.
Now, Deion Sanders, now a journalist with the NFL network, former standout star in the National Football League, said to the NFL Network today that Terrell Owens talked to him, and he called T.O. and said, hey, man, what's his suicide business?
And T.O. said, hey, man, that didn't happen.
So T.O.'s apparently going to deny that that's what this was all about.
He told Deion Sanders he was taking the pain pills plus some, you know, his nutrition supplements, and they didn't jibe well.
They didn't mix and caused all kinds of problems.
Still got that police report out there, though.
Yeah, the media is going and talking to people who don't even know T.O. Cal Ripkens on Fox right now.
He says, you know, Carol, you've been a professional athlete your whole career.
Well, anyway, greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I'm getting a lot of email from the usual suspects.
I don't know who T.O. is, and I don't care about football, and I'm turning you off.
You know, if you people keep that up, I'm going to take his press conference live.
We'll jip it so you can find out who T.O. is.
At any rate, working on a bumper sticker idea here, Mr. Snerdley, for the Democrats.
Hard on Bush, soft on terror, Democrats in 06.
A long t-shirt idea.
I survived a Democrat pregnancy.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, well, not one more thing.
A couple things here on this leak.
And we're at soundbite number five, Mike.
We're going to get to that here pretty soon.
The National Intelligence Estimate leak.
If you look at the Justice Department, you got to ask some questions about it.
The whole Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor case that has resulted in an indictment of Scooter Libby, even though Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the get-go that it was Richard Armitage who leaked Valerie Plam's name.
And there hasn't been anything done to stop this investigation or to shut it down.
Now, interestingly, the judge in this case, Reggie Walton, last week, in a ruling, gave the Justice Department, gave the government a way out of this over the argument both sides are having on the admissibility of classified documents.
Libby wants everything, of course, to help prove his innocence and to establish his defense.
And the government's saying, no, no, no, some of this stuff's classified.
You can't have it.
And the judge essentially said to the government, look, if he can't get his documents because they can't be classified, then maybe you have to just drop the case.
My words, but that was the essence of it.
But regardless, you've got that which is an embarrassment.
It is an embarrassment.
How many leaks have there been that they've not investigated?
There have been countless leaks to the New York Times and other places that they haven't investigated.
And it doesn't lend, doesn't produce a sense of confidence in me about the Justice Department.
Leak after leak comes out somewhere from somebody, nobody apparently, maybe it's going on behind the scenes, but if so, we don't know about it.
We don't know that anybody's doing anything about it.
Meanwhile, it is a 10-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of leaking classified material.
Now, this is the United States government.
It is the Justice Department.
You go up against them and you lose.
You can't compete with them financially.
They have all the money in the world.
If they want to string you out, you have to stop and make a deal with them.
So you can't tell me that they can't figure out who's doing this.
You can't tell me that they can't conduct an investigation to find out who's doing this.
They can get Ken Lay.
They can get Skilling.
They can get whoever they want.
They can get two reporters in San Francisco over the Barry Bonds thing.
They can get whoever they want, and there seems to be no interest in pursuing this.
Now, there could be any number of reasons, and I don't want to speculate on what they are, but the idea they can't do it is something I just don't accept.
You know, it really wouldn't be that difficult.
Yet, why is this not stopped?
We're not talking about leaking stuff about social security reform.
We're talking about leaking classified data.
It's been going on since prior to the commencement of hostilities in Iraq.
We have the Washington Post, the New York Times leaking battle plans.
Pentagon was leaking to one paper.
State Department was leaking to another.
Porter Goss apparently found somebody who was leaking and got rid of her at all clintonoid, and then they got rid of him.
Now, something stinks here.
Because, you know, if just one or two of whoever this is doing this were routed out and publicly humiliated and prosecuted, this would come to a screeching halt out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Just like terrorists, if we hide under the covers and hope they'll go away, they're only going to get bolder while we're not watching.
Now, we're talking about the war on terror.
We are talking about secrets.
We're talking about classified information.
Hell, the Democrats leak whatever they can get their hands on.
And they're trying to, to this day, to this minute, as we speak, they are attempting to stonewall the congressional effort to establish the parameters of the domestic spying program.
They don't want that to happen.
They're promising to filibuster that.
They're trying to delay it.
I'm going to tell you the truth here.
They're trying to delay it this session so that if they win the House and or the Senate, they can come back and kill the program when the new Congress is seated in January.
This bumper sticker idea is not a joke.
Hard on Bush, soft on terror, Democrats 06.
Now, there's one possibility on this latest leak.
And it's, you know, just speculation.
But this leak, this leak smells to me because you've got an entire estimate, one sentence, and this estimate's been known.
It's been seen since April.
Members of Congress have read this, said nothing about it until now, until given cover by the New York Times.
So if the New York Times is the foil behind which people are going to hide, apparently that's the case.
But this leak, this one sentence leak, which when you read what else has been declassified, totally cancels out this sentence, cancels out the notion that the Iraq war has made it all worse, confirms everything Democrats have said.
That's been canceled out.
That's been blown to Smithereens.
So you have to wonder, did somebody set the Times up?
And if so, who?
Was it somebody in the Intel community who is a patriot and who's sick and tired of what the Times is doing?
It's okay, try here, take this.
If that's the case, where are the Times buddies in the Democratic Party who see this, who've had the whole thing, and know that that one sentence is not anywhere near the consensus of the whole estimate?
Was it somebody in government?
Is it somebody who is indeed upset at these leaks, trying to discredit every one of them from now on out?
I kind of hope so.
It's also tempting to believe that Democrats and reporters are stupid and are so blinded by hate and have their agenda so rigidly implanted that anything they get from anywhere that affirms it makes them unstoppable.
They can't control the urge to run with it without first checking it and making sure that it's all there is to know.
Both of these are seductive, that the Times was set up and that the Times simply features a bunch of people so blinded by rage and hatred that they have thrown their fact-checking skills out the window.
And it's tempting to believe the latter because this is not anywhere near the first time the Times has been embarrassed and gotten things entirely wrong.
And if I were the New York Times, if I ran that place, I wouldn't have published today.
I'd have been so embarrassed.
I would have been so ashamed.
But see, that's not how they work.
What they're doing today with their willing accomplices of the Democratic Party is trying to flood the zone with, hey, hey, hey, we want to see the whole thing.
Bush is hiding something.
Bush is still hiding something.
And not going to let them get away with that.
But this business of not being able to find out who these leakers are in three or four years, and who knows the only effort we know to find them.
This stupid claim case.
Something doesn't add up to me here.
Still breathlessly awaiting the public appearance of Terrell Owens outside his home somewhere.
In Dallas, greetings.
Welcome, Rush Limbaugh to EIB Network.
Here's Mary Ann in Louisville, Ohio.
Hi, Mary Ann.
I'm glad you called.
Hi, Rush.
It's good to talk to you.
Thank you.
You know, I don't want to update Terrell Owens, the real news of the day, but I did have another point to make.
Very cool of you.
Very good.
I'm afraid you, I'm a little worried about you.
I'm afraid you might be on the news with him tonight as a headline because he said Democrats abort their children.
I was really surprised to hear you say that.
I mean, I have believed this for a long time, but I didn't expect to hear you say it, though.
And don't back down and make a wimpy apology.
I have no intention of backing up.
I don't get your point.
You're worried that the Democrats are going to put me on the news tonight as saying they abort their kids and that's why there's a fertility gap.
Well, I'm afraid that, you know, like you read the story and it said nothing about that, and you picked up the real point of it, I thought, too.
We're on the cable shows tonight.
They're going to let them.
I don't worry about what they say about the day I start.
I mean, I really, you're worried about me being discredited as a listener and a devotee of this program.
You're worried about seeing me being criticized.
And I understand that.
It's the maternal instinct.
But stick with me here.
You think I'm just making that up?
You think I'm just pulling it out of thin air?
You think it's just my opinion?
No, I think it's true.
Well, would you like some backup for it?
Well, what do you mean?
I have it right here in my formerly nicotine story right here from March 1st of this year, 2006.
Who's Your Daddy?
It's a piece by James Taranto in the Best of the Web blog, which is the opinionjournal.com website.
In the new issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Philip Longman of the Liberal New America Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics, the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are likely to make Western societies, including the U.S., more conservative.
I reported this, and I talked about this back in March when it came out.
Specifically, those who practice patriarchy, which Longman defines not in the crude feminist sense of men dominating women, but as a, quote, particular value system that not only requires men to marry, but to marry a woman of proper station, those people that practice that are outbreeding those who do not.
In the United States, the percentage of women born in the late 30s who remained childless was near 10%.
By comparison, nearly 20% of women born in the late 50s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children.
The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 60s and 70s, the liberal writing this will leave no genetic legacy, nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.
Conservatives are having more babies.
That's what was said in the USA Today story.
This guy, Philip Longman, New America Foundation, says that fewer and fewer liberal women influenced by feminism at all are having fewer and fewer children, and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals.
There's just going to be fewer of them.
Meanwhile, conservatives are having kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit.
They're influencing the way their kids grow up.
And they're simply, at some point in the future, conservative kids are going to outnumber liberals.
And later on in this story, later on in this story, this, of course, dovetails with the Roe effect, i.e. Roe versus Wade.
Now, abortion's been brought into this, not by me, but by demographers.
This, of course, dovetails with the Roe effect, which surely magnifies the political consequences.
Support for unrestricted abortion defines the contemporary Democratic Party more than any other issue does.
And abortion advocates' open contempt toward those who disagree makes it hard for the latter to be Democrats.
Longman draws a lesson from military history after the agricultural revolution.
In more and more places in the world, fast-breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining slow-breeding hunters and gatherers.
It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle.
It mattered more that there were lots of them.
And there's simply fewer and fewer liberals having kids, which you'd have to assume fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up.
And this is something we covered in March.
Now, this USA Today story didn't mention this today, which I was stunned about and stunned by.
They focused on a pure social welfare angle of it and try to say that the poor kids, and there are fewer of them in Democratic districts, somehow is the problem of Republicans.
But I appreciate your being concerned for me.
So few people are.
So few people.
Most people, you have to understand, Marianne, most people would love to see me plummet to the depths of obscurity.
Oh, I know.
And you have called and you have expressed genuine love and heartfelt concern and even fear for what might happen.
But you fear not because whatever they say, we can back it up here.
Can I say one more thing?
By all means.
I just wanted to tell Jane Fonda to go back to doing aerobics because we, the women of this country, say no thank you to her.
Okay, stop and think about that for a second.
Now, you know, here, here, this is an excellent point.
Jane Fonda and who?
Steinem and these other babes are doing this new feminist radio network.
Right.
I think no one will listen.
Well, they're on four stations, nationwide, of course.
Nationwide.
Great.
You know what their topics are?
What?
Sewing.
Childcare.
Home ec.
How to get your man to cook.
Feng shui.
No, no, no.
I'm not making this up.
The point is, here are these women who say women are being driven away from traditional talk radio.
Why?
Because they don't like the subject matter.
They don't like confrontation.
They don't like dealing with issues.
Well, what the hell was the feminist movement all about?
Here are these feminist icons who are now going to go on the radio and try to replicate 1950s and 60s high school home ec class as a way of attracting women.
If that's not the greatest and final nail in the coffin of Middleton feminism from these founders anyway, then I don't know what is.
It makes your job easy.
Well, you know, this job is hard.
I just make it look easy because I'm good.
The great make everything they do look easy.
That's why everybody thinks they can do what the great do.
But I understand totally your point.
Beth in Acton, Massachusetts.
I'm glad you called and waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
I just wanted to say, if you applied the Darwinian theory that the liberals love so much to their reproductive habits, they'll be driving themselves into extinction eventually while the rest of us conservative Christians continue to reproduce.
Survival of fittest live on.
Survival of the fittest, yes.
Darwinian theory, yes.
How can liberals evolve if there are no liberals?
Exactly.
Well, you know, I live in Massachusetts, and it's interesting to hear you say these things because I've noticed it.
You know, anywhere I go, the liberals I know have one child.
If they have a girl, she doesn't want to have children.
Or if they have a boy, he's effeminized.
This poor guy has been just emasculated on drugs or whatever.
And I just don't see them having grandchildren.
And then they lament it as they get older.
You know, where are my grandchildren?
Well, you never embraced life, and life isn't going to embrace you.
Well, whatever the reasons, I mean, whatever the factors here, we've now got Census Data Bureau, or Census Bureau data that confirms this in a demographic fashion.
And I'm sitting here making this stuff up.
What we've learned today from USA Today via the Census Bureau is that per congressional district, there are 7,000 fewer kids in Democrat districts, on average nationwide, than Republican districts.
We've also learned that most of them are in one, or many of them are in single-parent homes and are very poor, and most are Hispanic and black, those who are poor and fit this profile.
It's not hard to draw conclusions here, folks.
Liberalism doesn't work.
Flat out just doesn't work.
Any number of cities in this country establish that.
That's all we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
El Rushmo's serving humanity simply by showing up.
Documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
All right.
For the rest of you who might be concerned over the statements I made today that the Democrats are aborting children and that's why there's a fertility gap.
And even though the piece that I just shared with you by the very liberal, what's his name again?
Philip Longman of the New American Foundation.
Let's hit you with this.
Friday, May 12th, 2006.
Again, James Taranto, opinionjournal.com.
Judicial Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on RU486, the abortion drug, and the final exhibit begins on page 60 of the PDF document linked above, and they do have the link here.
Makes for fascinating reading.
It is written by Ron Weddington.
Ron Weddington, who served as co-counsel along with his better half, Sarah Weddington, in successfully arguing Roe versus Wade.
The cover letter dated January 6, 1992, but the year seems to be in error since the addressee, Betsy Wright, is identified as working for the transition team, Clinton transition team.
In it, Weddington tells Betsy Wright of the four-page missive to the president-to-be that follows that I am going to try to get it published.
Would you like to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington, co-counsel on Roe versus Wade, wrote to then President-elect Bill Clinton?
You want to hear it?
These are excerpts.
I don't think you're going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better, educated, and healthier and wealthier population.
You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, the unhealthy, and poor segment of our country.
No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.
Crime, drugs, and disease are already doing that.
The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced, but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
There, I've said it.
It's what we all know is true.
We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy.
We don't have a lot of time left.
The biblical exhortation to be fruitful and multiply was directed towards a small tribe surrounded by enemies.
We are long past that.
Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes.
We don't need more cannon fodder.
We don't need more parishioners.
We don't need more cheap later.
We don't need more poor babies.
This appeared at theopinionjournal.com on March, or May the 12th, I'm sorry, of this year.
It was written to then President-elect Clinton sometime in 1992 to Betsy Wright from the co-counsel of the Roe v. Wade.
Now, what's he advocating here?
He's advocating abortion and having a litmus test on who should and who shouldn't have kids.
Now, I'm not indicting Clinton here.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just saying this is somebody who thought he was on Clinton's side.
This is a co-counsel in Roe versus Wade.
This is a Democrat.
So it's best to get this stuff out in the open.
If you think I'm out on a limb suggesting that there's a fertility gap and a lack of replacement-level liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births and that abortion is not a factor in it, you've got to have your head examined.
It is the foremost important social issue on the Democrat agenda and has been for as long as I've been following this stuff.
So I appreciate the concern you people have for me out there, but I'm going to get into all this stuff unless there's backup for it.
Here's John in Cleveland.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Well, you know, I was calling about Governor Allen, but before I get to that, sir, I just wanted to say thank you for the piece that you talked about from the Tuesday morning quarterback about the gamma radiation burst.
I've shared that with several individuals, and it gives them a refocus about how small and insignificant we truly are out there and that there is a God that does protect us.
True.
That's exactly what's a great piece by Greg Easterbrook.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
But about Governor Senator Allen, I live in Cleveland because I'm a professor for the Marine Corps, but I'm a resident of the state of Virginia and have voted in every election since I've been eligible to vote and have voted for Mr. Allen quite a few times.
And he's just been a great help to the state of Virginia, and it's sad to see them tear him down like this to be brought to this.
It's ridiculous.
He repealed the personal property tax to a point where it was accessible and able to be paid by most individuals and tried to bring it all the way down to nothing, but he had to fight a Democratic-controlled legislature and was unable to do so.
And has just been so supportive of the citizens and the citizens of him to see this happen to him is just despicable.
Well, you're exactly right.
It's despicable, but it's typical.
Look, when I say this to people, I think they think I don't take this stuff seriously.
It's unconscionably despicable.
But folks, come on, it's who they are.
This is what the Democrats do.
Now, this one involves the N-word, and that, you know, when somebody starts challenging you on that, when they try to peg you a racist, you can't let that stand, and Allen hasn't.
You have to fire back.
But what else do they do but smear people, folks?
Now, honestly, you hear anybody debating ideas with George Allen?
Every time Allen has debated James Webb, it is clear that Webb is not a Virginian, doesn't know Virginia history, and policies, when they actually get discussed, make it clear that Allen is superior in that field.
Democrats can't let that happen.
They know they're going to lose on policy debates, ideological debates, idea debates.
So what do they do?
Smear.
It's all they do.
Examine the timeline of this.
How long has George Allen been serving his country, his state?
He's been in public life long enough to have been an assemblyman, a governor, a congressman, and a senator.
And in all of that time, there hasn't been one such complaint other than the guy likes the Confederate flag, which is another smear attempt.
Now, all of a sudden, here comes a guy from 17 years ago, or how many years ago, when Allen played football somewhere, that said he used the N-word, and then he said, did black people eat turtles?
And all of this absurd stuff.
Now, people in Virginia, and like you, ex-Virginians who now live elsewhere, are just as outraged by this as any of the rest of us are.
I got several emails from people yesterday.
How come you didn't take on this Allen business?
Well, because I mentioned a little bit on Monday, but frankly, even the networks are beginning to run this.
This is Allen being railroaded.
They have overshot again.
They have gone way over the line.
Started with macaca.
They couldn't let go of that.
It's still around.
Now the N-word, this is, it's just, it fits a pattern.
And believe me, folks, there are far many millions more Americans who recognize that pattern and are disgusted by it today than even six years ago, 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago.
You know, Jim Webb, somebody asked him, have you ever used the N-word?
And is it, well, I don't think there's anybody who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word passes their lips at one time or another.
So what we have here is George Allen denying he said the N-word and Jim Webb admitting, all but admitting that he did say and has uttered it.
The media making any hay out of this?
No, they don't, because it's not the agenda.
It's not the template.
Allen's first wife is denying he ever said that African Americans eat turtles.
And there aren't any independent witnesses to corroborate any of these allegations made in that salon.com piece or a New York Times article about Allen and the N-word.
Then there's this ridiculous charge that Allen put a deer's head in a black family's mailbox.
Have you heard that one?
Two Louisa County Sheriff's deputies who were on the force in the early 1970s said in interviews on Tuesday that they don't recall any complaints about severed animal heads.
Nobody remembers any such thing.
Now, one of these two named accusers, a guy named Christopher Taylor, is a registered Democrat.
He opposes Allen's election.
The other guy who got all this started is a guy named Ken Shelton, a registered Democrat up until 2004.
He's the guy, by the way, who made the deerhead allegation.
A lot of people that were on Allen's football team have come to his defense, including Reverend Gary Hamm, who is a black minister.
Now, this is so over the top.
It is so over the top, it's going to backfire.
Mark my words.
It's already starting to when networks are starting to ask the question, is Allen being railroaded?
You know, if you're going to start charging people with these kinds of things, they better look like they're capable of it.
They better have a track record that's identifiable.
You're going to run around and paint George Allen as a racist or a guy who says black people eat turtles or stuffing dead deer heads in people's mailboxes.
You better make sure that the guy you're accusing looks sleazy enough to do this kind of stuff.
And they don't.
Because they're still living in the old days where they think they dominate and control the media and that once they say it, it takes on a life of its own that cannot be refuted.
Let me tell you who I've really lost a lot of respect for in this.
And that's a guy who up to now has been portrayed as a great independent thinking political scientist and analyst at the University of Virginia, Larry Sabateau.
What Larry Sabateau has done in this situation to me is unconscionable.
He has essentially repeated hearsay and repeated hearsay as gospel and has used his good offices, his reputation, to back it up.
His comments have been just caught me totally off guard.
Aside from the fact that Sabato in recent years in predicting the outcomes of elections has not really been that accurate, he still enjoyed a certain degree of credibility in terms of his independent political analysis.
Here's what he said about his personal knowledge of George Allen's alleged use of a racial slur.
Quote, I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case.
And the fact is he did use the N-word whether he's denying it or not.
Well, a reader to the Power Line blog, John Farmer, sent Sabato an email to press him on the question of his personal knowledge about Allen using the N-word.
I believe you need to make a clearer statement to the press regarding your claim that George Allen used the N-word.
That's about the most damaging political charge you can make in today's environment.
If the media reports your comment correctly and you claim to know that he used it, fairness requires you cite your evidence.
Otherwise, Mr. Allen's denied the opportunity to confront and examine the person making the claim.
Sabateau's staff responded with the following email message that Sabateau had sent earlier in response to other inquiries.
Sabato, I didn't know these things until the past few months.
People I know and who are very credible contacted me and shared the stories.
Then reporters checked them out.
I'm not a reporter.
Based on everything they learned, they believe the stories, and so do I. Other things will determine the election, though.
This is irresponsible.
He got used.
Mr. Sabato, you were used.
You just heard about this a few months ago.
Somebody calling you up.
People you know saying that where has this been for 20 years?
Where has this been for 15 years?
It is outrageous, but the nature and the over-the-top characteristics of this outrage are such, folks, that it is going to backfire big time.
And this is at the same time, it's going to take this whole macaca thing down the toilet and the drain with it as well, because they've overplayed that.
And Alan is going to emerge from this with his dignity and his character intact.
It's ridiculous and rotten that people have to go through this, but everybody in public life does.
Well, not everybody.
The people on the right do.
Republicans, conservatives, on the right go through this constantly.
And there are any number of ways of dealing with it, which we have discussed.
Alan doesn't have a three-hour radio show to deal with it every day.
He has to deal with it in the context of his campaign.
It's a little easier for some than others to actually refute and deal with these kind of things.
At any rate, I got to run a little long here, but we will be back and continue shortly.
Let me put this thought out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Something to think about.
How often do you turn on television, go to the movies, and hear either comedians or characters in movies using the N-word?
I mean, you can't watch any of these cable comedy shows without hearing the word all over the place used by black comics and so forth.
I continually, you know, when I watch movies or television shows, DVDs or what have you, I routinely remain stunned by the stereotyped characters in many movies that blacks are assigned by our tolerant and understanding liberal left in Hollywood.
Pimps, drug runners, criminals of some name.
And they all use the N-word.
In written scripts, written joke monologues.
It wasn't long ago that the National Basketball Association, Players Association, actually asked the league to decriminalize the, you won't believe this, the word MF, because it just used too much on the court.
It's part of what goes on in a basketball game, and the fans sit so close they can hear it.
And of course, they were coming down on the players for using it.
No, no, no.
Of course, the league didn't go along with this naturally.
But is it time maybe to change the way we look at the N-word and stop making it a crime?
I'm just throwing it out there because that's the root of this.
It is used by the left exclusively to smear and ruin Republicans and conservatives, even when they've never said it, even when their own candidates admit to saying it.
Grab audio soundbite number one.
Let's go back to March 4th, 2001 on Fox News Sunday, Robert Byrd talking with Tony Snow.
My old mom told me, Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.
We practice that.
There are white niggers.
I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time going to use that word.
Right, they can.
They can.
There's no crime when Robert Byrd uses it.
There's no crime when it appears in movies or on television.
But, you know, it's just, it's kept, it's a weapon.
It's an actual weapon in the Democrat arsenal, this word.
And it is brought out and alleged to have been said even when it hasn't been.
Of course, that's one of these stereotypes that the left has of conservatives, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
And as we all know, if we want to admit it, it's actually just the opposite in terms of who practices and engages in those kinds of behavior.
Gee, I just realized we're only up to audio soundbite number five out of 17 of these babies.
Got some ground to cover when we get back, and we will do it.
Got to listen fast, folks.
▲
Export Selection