All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
December 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the only radio show you need.
You are listening to the only network.
And you need to spend any serious time with the Rush Limbaugh program and the excellence in Broadcasting Network.
This also the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thrilled and delight to be with you.
I am living legend El Rushbo.
All-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-everything, all-concerned, Maha-Rushy.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
Robert Byrd this morning during the Senate confirmation hearing of Robert Gates.
This is not the soundbite I was referring to earlier when he was asking Gates about, you know, who did who bin Laden versus Saddam, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda versus uh versus Iraq.
But uh nevertheless, um uh his it's a uh little exchange here in which Gates pretty much rules out attacks on Iran and Syria.
Do you support an attack on Iran?
I would counsel against uh military action except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.
Do you support an attack on Syria?
No, sir, I do not.
Do you believe the President has the authority under either the 911 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution to attack Iran or to attack Syria, to the best of my knowledge of both of those uh authorizations, I don't believe so.
It's uh uh I don't know if it's an academic point or not by now, but uh my my recollection of those resolutions uh is it they're pretty broad.
Uh the president thinks that uh any any to take any action he deems necessary to prevent another such attack as was 9-11.
Um, I I don't expect Gates to say that, oh yeah, yeah, well, we're gonna we're gonna attack Iran.
I can't wait to get to the Pentagon so I can start formulating the battle plan, Senator.
Uh clearly his objective here is to get confirmed.
Uh and this dog and pony show of a confirmation hearing uh is is something to be navigated and negotiated.
Uh not suggesting he's lying, don't misunderstand.
I'm just he's not he's not gonna say sure, Senator Byrd.
Uh yep, can't wait to blow him off the map.
Um, they're threatening to blow us off the map, Senator, and uh we're here to protect American lives.
We'll do what's necessary uh should that become uh a threat.
American lives I would consider to be a vital interest.
Now, yesterday, as you know, we talked about the um uh Supreme Court case, the affirmative action case, these two scruels.
Uh basically a bussing case, and the scruils were trying to assign school population school assignments on the basis of race and diversity.
Uh uh there's a there's a new sheriff in town, Anthony Kennedy is said to be the swing vote in this case now.
The oral arguments we have.
We have the audio yesterday, uh, and I've got four sound bites, and this it does not look good for the diversity crowd here, and they are miffed about it.
Uh remember, this this case um didn't get anywhere before because Sandra Day O'Connor uh was there, and and she effectively joined the Libs.
These people on the diversity side of this uh the school case, uh bussing and what have you, the diversity side needy Kennedy to be the swing vote.
So here's a portion of his remarks yesterday at the court.
You are characterizing each student by reason of the color of his or her skin.
That is quite a different means.
And it seems to me that that should only be, if ever allowed, allowed as a last resort.
The emphasis on the fact that everybody gets into a school, it seems to me it is misplaced.
The question is whether or not you can get into the school that you really prefer.
And that, in some cases, depends solely on skin color.
You know, it's it's like saying that everybody can have the meal, but only people of a separate skin can get the dessert.
Doesn't sound good for the uh diversity crowd.
Here is now Scalia and a portion of his remarks during oral arguments yesterday.
Can you think of any other area of the law in which we say whatever it takes?
So long as there's a real need, whatever it takes.
Stop the tape a minute.
Stop the tape.
Stop the stop the tape.
Recue that to the top.
He is talking straight to Briar here.
Because Briar on television Sunday, whatever it takes, if we have to go extra constitutional, if we have to do that to level the playing field and make things fair, sometimes the Constitution doesn't do what we need it to do, and so we have to do it in the interest of fairness.
Whatever it takes, and Scalia, not only retorting here to the lawyers on the diversity side of this, but also Justice Breyer, and there'll be a little back and forth that you'll hear in just a second, but here it is again from the top.
Seems to me you're saying you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Did can you think of any other area of the law in which we say whatever it takes, so long as there's a real need, whatever it takes.
I mean, if we have a lot of crime out there, and the only way to get rid of it is to uh use warrantless searches, you know, fudge on some of the protections of the Bill of Rights, whatever it takes, we gotta do it.
Any any area of the law that doesn't have some absolute restrictions?
Now, Briar and Scalia got into a back and forth here, and uh when you listen to this, and I don't mean to sound sexist here.
I mean, I think I think even women would conclude with uh would agree with with my uh conclusion here that Briar can it sort of sounds like a nagging wife uh telling the Skulley in the school board, we're just trying to do a good thing and make every school equal.
Here is the exchange um uh with uh with Harry Corell, who is the attorney for parents involved in these community schools.
Here we have no merit selection system.
Merit is not at issue.
The object of the people who run this place is not to create a school better than others, it is to equalize the schools.
I would direct your honor to the district court judge's uh uh decision, and there's a footnote in the decision in which she acknowledged that the uh the schools were not of equal quality, that they provided different levels of education.
Well, of course they're not, and that's why some of them were oversubscribed.
I didn't say that others were undersubscribed.
And I didn't say that they were.
What I said was that the object of the school board and the administering authorities was to make them roughly equal.
I said that in terms of curriculum and faculty, they're about roughly equal.
Well, but they're not, because that that's what the that's what the lower court judges said in the footnote, that they are not equal.
Uh when he's talking about equality, he's talking about racial equality.
You know, the same number here, percentages that reference and uh uh represent uh population figures and so forth.
Um it it's it's it it you can you can see here that this is not about education at all.
Uh it's uh it it it's about it's about diversity and uh all these other things.
Now here's the here's the last bite with Breyer, and he sums it up, I think basically saying here that liberals see a terrible problem out there, and and and so they must substitute their personal policy preferences for the Constitution.
It seems to me from what I read that there's a terrible problem in the country.
And the problem is that there are lots and lots of school districts that are becoming more and more segregated in fact, and that school boards all over are struggling with this problem.
And if they knew an easy way, they'd do it.
So well, not necessarily.
Uh but regardless, what he is saying is there's a terrible problem out there, and we at the Supreme Court, uh, we we have even if we have to ignore the Constitution, we must address this problem.
Uh this is a case, you know, that involves some students being bust an hour and a half, one way, two scrual, and an hour and a half back home.
Three hours a day on a screw bus, leaving it 5 30 in the morning, just for the purposes of segregating a school for no other reason.
Just racial balance or equality.
And so the skin color of the student becomes the primary factor, not what the parents want, not where you live.
A lot of people move into certain areas precisely because they like the school system.
Here come the liberals.
Well, you can't do that because it's not not everybody can move where you moved, so we're gonna take your kids away from where you moved, and we're gonna send them a place that you didn't want to leave so that you can find out how the other half lived.
Yo, Tam is up.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hey, folks, hot off the wire.
From the Associated Press holding this in my formerly nicotine stained fingers.
Headline, PlayStation 3 can help cure cancer.
The new PlayStation 3 isn't all about entertainment.
That's the message that Sony is trying to convey in announcing that the new game consoles, as powerful as supercomputers, can help Stanford University researchers analyze complex human protein structures, and perhaps find cures for cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and uh and other ailments.
Sony said that data processing time can be up twenty times faster with a global network of PS3s, which are fitted with uh advanced cell processors that can perform billions of calculations per second.
Wow, PlayStation 3 help cure cancer.
That's great news, folks.
That means we don't need to go any further in stem cell research.
Janny in Northport, Florida, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, um, first of all, thank you for your note to me via Susan and Jimmy.
I I treasure it.
Um Rush, you've thrown out some comments about the baby boomers since.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no.
Hold it just a second.
You th you thanked me for my note to you via Susan and Jenny.
Jimmy.
Long Island.
Susan and Jimmy.
Yeah.
On Long Island.
Uh, last August.
You were golfing out there on the Hampton in the Hamptons, I believe.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I oh no, okay.
Now I get now I know who you are.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you.
Um as I say I treasure it and have it framed.
But anyway, um you've thrown out some comments about the baby boomers since the election.
So I'll bite.
Um and I think like you, I keep thinking about the Shelby Steele column uh on the boomer generation that you've referenced over the years.
Yeah, the uh the uh white guilt business.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that the you know, the boomers around the world now, and frankly, um I don't feel very safe in it.
And Steele wrote, you know, about our parents' generation and what they sacrificed for in World War II and the Depression, and how the boomers we've never known sacrifice.
And we have this superior, condescending, snobbish attitude, I think, toward, or they think toward that that generation that we're smarter, more educated, we have a better understanding of everything.
And and the boomers, they're they're arrogant, they're self-absorbed, self-indulgent.
They they're very undisciplined, I think.
And this the self-interest is gonna bring this country to its knees if we don't begin to understand what radical Islam has in store for us.
You know, this is uh I I agree with much of what you've said about the baby boom generation.
I I I've uh I'll take it a little further.
If you look at the baby and uh you did you say you are one?
Yes, all right, so your age.
All right.
Well, what's that?
Late 50s.
No, mid-50s.
Mid-50s.
But hey, I wish it were late fifties.
I've always wanted to be older.
And I've been right.
Every year has been better than the year before.
When I was sixteen, I wanted to be forty.
At any rate, um, if you look at what our parents did, uh the formative experiences in their lives were many.
Great Depression, uh, World War II, uh, you might even say, in some cases, the the uh the Korean war.
They had to learn very, very early in life that uh uh life was about many things larger than themselves.
They did such a good job of it that they basically paved I'll tell you how I evolved this theory.
I evolved this there.
I was talking to some friends at a Christmas party 15 years ago when I was forty.
And I said, you know, half the time I still feel like I'm eighteen.
I I uh I mean I I still feel like I'm trying to make up for lost ground in junior high and high school.
And I compare my dad when he was forty wasn't doing that.
My dad when he was forty was set.
His life was uh his future was what it was, and he if he hadn't made it by forty, he didn't have a chance.
And so my friends and I began discussing this, and uh and and the theory evolved among all of us that uh well our lives had basically been pretty easy compared to those of our parents and we had been we had far more time to explore ourselves and to get into self-indulgence that you uh that you talked about.
It w was was not necessary for us to grow up nearly as fast.
And plus, let's admit it, some of our parents uh you know, no parent wants their child uh to do anything other than have a better life.
So some of our parents coddled us and uh sheltered us and made sure we didn't have to go through things like uh uh World War II and a Great Depression.
So they educated us on that basis and they spent a lot of time with.
And I think the baby boom generation grew up to be very self-focused, self-centered, and uh and and and very selfish.
And in fact, I anger people when I say this, but I think we had to create our own traumas.
Oh, yeah.
We had to invent our own stresses, and most of them are psychological discoveries that happened by us.
You know, our peers who have become doctors discovered all these new traumas and all these new syndromes and so forth, so that we too could tell ourselves life is a B.I.H. Because it really hasn't been compared to what our parents was.
But nobody wants to think they got it cushy because when you have it cushy, you have no excuses for failure.
And everybody needs excuses for failure that do not redound to them personally.
Well, yeah, I had ADD, or I had post-traumatic stress disorder, or I had um you know, whatever it was.
I never got over the loss of my cat.
Uh uh you name it, we came up with uh some kind of stress uh that that uh uh enabled us to tell ourselves that life was tough and it was hard.
But in fact, it's never been better.
The opportunity that we've had has never been greater.
Uh the opportunity for financial security has never been greater for more people in this country than ever before in the course of human history.
Uh and that that a lot of people haven't accessed it to the best of their ability, so they need excuses for it.
Um when it comes to the selfishness and the self-indulgence aspect of the boomers, not all boomers are this way.
I mean, I I'm a boomer.
I'm I'm you know, ashamed to admit it because of what uh most of my boomer brethren uh have evolved to, particularly as parents.
One of the biggest problems is what boomer parents are like.
Would you not agree?
Oh, uh yes.
You want to take a stab at explaining why?
I don't want to do all the talking here.
Well, that I don't know if you're I'm going toward the liberal education in the country.
Uh parents really don't have uh a say in in and what their kids are learning.
They don't want it.
Well, they don't they don't want that's the you know, foist it off on the schools, foist the discipline off on they they don't want it.
Hello, Nanny, I don't even want to raise the kid.
But don't you feel Rush that because the boomers have had the education system they've owned it, the liberal boomers for thirty or forty years now.
How are we ever going to get these kids back?
It's just gonna get worse, in my opinion.
It may.
You know, I'm I'm I'm sorry I look at I uh look at what I just said.
Life in America is better every year than it was the year before.
Every day it's better than it was the previous day.
That's that's been my personal experience.
I try not to dwell in in defeatism.
I know it's difficult, and there are sometimes reasons not to be optimistic because if you're falsely optimistic, you can disguise the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, which is what a lot of liberals do when it comes to threats against the country.
But it has been shown uh that the uh the kids coming out of the educational system can get their minds right.
Uh can can and eventually grow out of this sort of stuff.
It's not lost, it's not a hopeless lost cause.
Education is the uh is the last bastion where the liberals do have a monopoly.
There's no question about it.
And it just means it's a challenge that we have.
But when you say how are we going to get the kids back, we're gonna well th th these you know if if if we're unable to do it, the cyclical nature of generation evolvement will handle it.
At some point, if not Gen X or Gen Y or whatever the current crop of crumb crunchers out there is called as a generation.
At some point, uh and this has happened throughout American history, perhaps even human history.
There's gonna be a generation of kids that grow up is simply going to reject the values of their parents and their grandparents if they become too destructive.
Because people are gonna continue to want as free Americans the opportunities that previous generations have had, and they're gonna try to do what they can to secure it.
If that means rejecting a bunch of perverted, failed values uh that the that they're born to, they'll go around changing it.
This is I mean, we had the Puritans, we had we had we had all kinds of the uh the stifling of uh of a number of different freedoms throughout the history of the country, and and at some point it regenerates and refreshes itself.
Uh and I have no I have no doubt that that will continue to happen here so long as we're not attacked again and wiped out by uh by military enemies.
That's a whole nother thing.
Uh thanks for the call, we'll be back in a sec.
You know, uh I really do have a dilemma.
Folks, when when when when I when I get a call like we just had, and uh the caller has a vision of not doom.
Well, maybe it is doom.
Maybe she maybe her vision is doom.
We're losing the kids.
How are we gonna get them back?
And my dilemma is there are times I feel the same way.
Uh and sometimes when you want to issue a call to arms to people, sometimes if you do it right, portraying the worst vision possible can motivate people to wake up.
And sometimes, you know, it's really not that bad.
Uh cite reasons for optimism, people relax a little bit.
And I I go to um great lengths here, not to go extreme or hysterical in either direction.
But believe me, I mean, I uh fully recognize the challenges and the and the disappointments and the and the frustrations that all of you do regarding education, liberalism in general, the media, the domination of the uh uh of the country by by people who appeal to people's emotions rather than their brains.
Uh and I but I just I can't come here each and every day and start preaching the copy apocalypse.
You know, because I don't I don't think that we're facing the apocalypse.
I don't I don't think the country is doomed.
But I do think that uh it has it has serious challenges.
And I don't like to present uh news that is artificially false, designed to instill hope that is not real, because that would be cruel.
But when the you look at the theory that that uh generations clean themselves up uh, you know, at uh at usually it's every third or fourth generation, if you look at the patterns.
Uh if you go back and check this, uh you you you will find that at some stage in uh the evolution of generations that a generation is born and just rebels.
They're just not gonna put up with the value system that exists.
So that can be good or bad.
I mean, it happens both ways.
Uh right now we've got the baby boomers who are basically rebelling against anybody who doesn't put them first.
And so we've got all these ridiculous trans fat bans and you know, we're we're banning smoking, but because it kills we're not making it illegal because we make the uh we need the tax money.
Uh we're we're just we're we're all kinds of wacko stupid things uh are happening in the schools, and a lot of them are because liberalism never dies and never goes away.
A lot of it is because some people just don't want to face certain responsibilities in life.
But there are there are stories that evidence the fact that there are reasons to be optimistic.
I saw something on television yesterday.
What was this on um it was I Well I already got I got PMS NBC and Fox on in here, so it had to be one of those two.
Do you know that at the University of California at Berkeley, Republican students outnumber Democrat students?
Conservatives at Berkeley.
At Berkeley.
Conservative students outnumber liberal students.
They interviewed a political science professor.
Asked him if, are you worried about this?
Oh no.
No, no, no, no, no.
We love diversity here on our campus.
Yeah, but I guarantee they're gonna do everything they can to change the minds of the dominant conservative Republican majority on the campus, but it's still of all places.
I mean, that's that's no different than if we woke up today and realized the majority of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is now conservative judges.
That's about how profound it is.
These are rush babies.
I own California, folks.
I can't tell you.
I we blanket that state, you can't go anywhere other than the mountaintops, where there are no radio towers and broadcast signals.
We own the rush babies at the University of California at Berkeley.
I'll tell you somebody else who deserves credit for this is Ward Connorly, who has given everything to change admissions policies on the basis of merit rather than uh the usual criterion of, well, is it disadvantaged here, there's a minority there, or what have you.
And Ward Connolly has been doing a lord's work for I can't tell you how many years, and there are lots of people like Ward Connolly who are working behind the scenes not for any personal credit or public acclaim.
They're just doing what they do because they believe in it.
And they're they're targeted by the left as well, and their lives are uh attempted to be destroyed, reputations attempted to be destroyed.
Because remember, liberals can't win in an argument against anybody.
All they can do is discredit and insult and and and and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
In fact, let me find this story.
Well, here's two stories.
there's three stories of the is four stories of the peace side of this not the one looking for but sit tight Uh how about this headline?
Kids see too many anti-impotence ads, according to doctors.
Anti-imminent.
Okay.
Um hang on there, B B. Be uh patient here, folks.
I'll find this in just a second.
Now I've even forgot what I'm looking for, but I'll know it when I see the headline.
Well, here's another one about Berkeley.
There it's I can't believe I don't have this one higher in the uh in the stack.
Here it is.
Here it is.
It's about the election results.
This is from Human Events by Timothy P. Carney.
One theme emerging from the 2006 elections is the ongoing march to extinction in the House of Pro-Choice Republicans.
The already small pro-choice contingent in the GOP caucus was cut in half as pro-choice Republicans performed much worse than the rest of the party.
First, consider the Republicans who receive money from pro-choice PACs.
Planned Parenthood, NAROL Pro-Choice America, they're two of the largest pro-choice PACs.
Five Republican candidates, including Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, received money from one or both of these PACs in 2006.
All five of them lost.
Similarly, the Republican majority for choice PAC funded 16 GOP candidates for House and Senate.
Only four of them won.
Most striking was the poor performance of incumbents funded by these PACs.
Incumbent Republicans supported by Nayrol and Plant Parenthood went from zero or two zero, went zero for three over three.
Incumbent Republicans, supported by Republican majority for choice were a dismal four for eleven.
So now beyond these campaign contributions, uh voting records paint a similar picture.
The most pro-choice Republicans were far more likely to lose than pro-life or moderate Republicans.
So this last election aborted the careers of many pro-choice Republicans.
Despite all the funding they got from the pro-choice crowds out there.
Now, it's a it's an interesting phenomenon.
I want to I want to remind you why.
These are rhino republicans.
These are moderate liberal Republicans.
And they, by the way, I got a note, what is a Rhino Republican stands for Republican in name only.
R-I-N-O, has nothing to do with being a rhinoceros.
Just an acronym, Republican in name only.
Rhino pro-abortion Republicans disproportionately lost in this election, and conservative, or Democrat in name only Democrats, disproportionately won.
Now, this is another thing to take some measure of contentment from, if you don't want to say happiness.
At least you can say it's a little reassuring in the wake of these big losses.
Conservatives need to hang together and ditch these rhino embarrassments.
It is just more and more validation that conservatism did not lose in this election.
You know, and everybody out there is telling us you guys you've got to get rid of the Christian right, you've got to get rid of the evangelicals, you're gonna you've got to get rid of this abortion business, and the people losing on it are the pro-choice types, the pro-abort types.
Even the Democrats that won had to go out there and say, I'm uh pro-life.
I believe in God, Jesus is the dude.
All these things that they were out there saying that, and they got elected.
It wasn't so much party label that mattered, it was ideology.
And so if you if you know that's that it's gonna be a total mistake uh for anybody to assume that liberalism won this election.
So I that's just another reason.
I'm trying to give you three or four here, why I uh do not succumb to the seduction of throwing my hands in the air and say, ah, screw it!
The country's lost, it's over, there's nothing we can do about it.
We've lost the kids.
I don't care, it's it's horrible.
And folks, I'm gonna tell you you better wake up because this country's I know there are people on the radio and elsewhere that do that, but uh I just don't uh think that way.
Uh I mean there are you know, every time I see Ted Kennedy on, I get I get apocalyptic and fatalistic.
And there are incidents uh that that I'll see that that make me think that way for a split second.
Uh but the overall picture is uh not nearly as apocalyptic as all that.
Plus, my friends, and this is this goes to the dilemma that I was describing here at the beginning of what has turned out to be a really brilliant totally ad-lib segment.
My father, when when my brother and I were growing up, and I we still we he started talking to us about these matters when I was nine.
So that would have been 1960, during the uh during the campaign, the Kennedy Nixon campaign in that presidential race.
And I remember my dad telling me that if Jack Kennedy were elected president, he didn't think he'd start a war on purpose.
But he thought he thought a war would happen.
He said, son, it's not like if I put a chair here in the middle of the kitchen and get up and swing a baseball bet and aim it at the light bulb, I'll break the light bulb.
I don't think that's what Kennedy's gonna do, but I think he's gonna get on a chair and start swinging the bat and accidentally hit the bulb.
And uh he was right.
It was called Vietnam, and uh, even prior to that it was this disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion that we caved on and didn't follow through on, which gave us I mean, exploding cigars, give me a break.
Big CI attempt to wipe out Fidel Castro.
Uh he also said to my brother and I, and our friends who had come over, and this is an example of of uh, you know, this this it did two things to us.
We laughed and said, Oh my gosh, dad's off on a rant again.
But it also made us stop and think about it now, and that he said, you boys are gonna be slaves if these communists aren't stopped.
And he said the first people that are gonna be taken slaves are these media people who think that they're the best friends of these people, because they're the ones that are gonna be shut into jails first so they can't continue to do what they do.
Well, that was a call to arms in a sense he was he was sharing with my brother and I what he really felt as a parent and as an American his fears were.
Now it it uh remember now this is this is 1960-61.
Khrushchev has just banged a shoe at the UN, so there was a legitimate fear of communists, and it was not, you know, you didn't discredit yourself to talk about the communists or accuse certain people of being communists then.
It was after Alger Hiss uh and uh and all that.
The only people you offended by calling communists communists were liberals, because they were their friends, still are, essentially.
Well, look at Ortega, they're happy.
They're probably, I mean, the Castro.
Look at who their friends are.
They they don't there's not a dictator or thug out there that they don't support on some perverted basis.
Well, it's just a small little country, little victim of oppressive United States policies over the decades, but whatever they come up with.
Uh but you know, you can't as as radio host or somebody talking to you every day.
I'm not gonna come here and say the equivalent of you people are gonna be slaves.
Maybe I should have said it to this kid from West Palm Beach who called the first caller of the day.
Because he doesn't get it.
A lot of liberals just don't understand who the enemy is, and they do not understand what the war on terror is all about.
Wherever it is, be it Iraq, be it Somalia, be it the Philippines, they don't understand what it is because they are people who think all people are the same.
Which is why I cringe or laugh when they laugh at Bush's plan to democratize Iraq.
They're the people, listen to this.
These are the liberals who say we're all just the same people.
We're just like we're just together.
We just need to communicate to them and let them know that we don't intend to harm this.
And yet, when you have Bush basically articulating their theory that we're all just the same, they smirk, they let what do you mean democracy in Iraq?
Way, freedom's not for everybody.
The arrogance and condescension of these people.
What they fail to understand is that the war on terror, wherever it is being fought, is not about anything other than saving our own lives.
They just can't get that.
It's got to be about boilers, it's got to be about Halliburton.
Why, why, it has to be about money and power.
Some some silly conspiratorial junk that they come up with.
It's about saving our lives.
And I just I wonder how much they value American life over any other life, given that they think we're the oppressors and are causing all the death around the world.
Back in just a second.
All right, folks, just a programming note here.
Uh that last uh brilliantly conceived, totally flawlessly executed ad-lib monologue went a little long.
This is gonna be a short segment.
Uh Elkton, Maryland, in April.
Nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Russ, and Megaditto from the top of the Chesapeake Bay.
Thank you.
How are you?
Good.
Um I've got a practical question to ask you.
It it's my business to communicate with people, but I'm at a loss, a complete loss as to how to communicate the mortal danger we're in from Islamical fascism to the milk toast key sheds out there.
I feel like it's 1938 all over again, but but this is worse.
And sort of bankrupting myself by buying up every copy is because they hate and sending it to everybody I know.
How do we counter the liberal media?
I mean, what platform would um average Americans use to that that these people will listen to?
I'm afraid we'll have to take another hit.
Oh, I've I've I've thought that for a couple of years.
But what can normal Americans do to uh to spread this word?
I mean, it's just you can't get it out there through the Yeah, it's a tough thing, and like we had this, we had this uh the first caller of the day today.
Uh may as well have been from a different planet.
Uh oh I heard him, yeah.
There there's there's no way.
I mean, I in in in a case of uh somebody like that, uh there's there's no way of persuading.
That that that's not the objective.
The political objective is to defeat these people uh at the ballot box and keep them out of power.
Not these people that are calling, but I mean the their leaders are the people that they uh that they would vote for.
Now, having said that, April, I have to tell you something.
Uh I mean I don't have a running count of it, but it's it's gazillions, it's a lot.
The number of liberals who over the course of this program in 18 years have changed.
I I get countless times I get emails.
I used to be a Democrat till I heard you.
So it's possible, but I mean it takes time.
You don't accomplish it in one conversation.
Uh but but these these these uh these people don't they they they they have a uh it's almost like it's genetic.
They just have a different view of things, and it starts with the fundamental belief that their country is always guilty, that their country is wrong.
And it proceeds or descends from there.
I wish I had more time, but I went long in that previous uh brilliant monologue.
So brilliant I didn't have the discipline to stop it.
Be right back.
Say with us.
We have a woman on the phone who wants to talk about the new Castrati.
There's something I like about when women want to talk about the new Castrati to me.
That's coming up and lots of other things in the next hour.
▲
Export Selection