All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
December 28, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, earlier in the program, I was making fun of these cable networks that are just obsessing right now over the fact that Denver is being hit with another snowstorm.
Barreling into Denver.
That's what Fox News Channel just said.
I have an idea.
I this idea makes a lot of sense to me.
There may be an outside, but I'm not sure what it is.
I think Denver shouldn't be allowed to have an airport.
Before Christmas, everybody in America, the American air traffic network came to a halt because of this snowstorm in Denver.
No planes could get in or out of Denver, and because Denver is a major hub for a couple of airlines, that meant that the planes that couldn't get out of Denver couldn't get to all the other cities that they serve.
And all over America, people were stalled and they were late getting home for Christmas.
So if we just don't let Denver have an airport, we wouldn't ever have that problem because you know what?
It's going to snow in Denver a lot in the winter.
Since when did snowstorms become like the dominant story in the news?
It's winter.
It's I'm from Wisconsin.
You know what?
It's probably going to snow a few times there.
And we're going to be snowed in.
It's weather.
It happens.
I made a comment at the end of the last hour of the program that I think I need to explain.
I said, stop worrying about Hillary.
Now I realize that's probably shocking for many of you because I know that a lot of you are scared to death of the prospect of Hillary being president.
Just say it.
President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From a purely selfish standpoint, and I am not a selfish person.
But for if I were from a purely selfish standpoint, can you imagine how beautiful another Clinton presidency would be for those of us in conservative talk radio?
I mean, the lefties seem to think every time our side loses an election, it'll be the end of Rush Limbaugh, it'll be end of people like me.
It's over for you guys.
The American people are turning against you.
Bill Clinton, in fact, was one of the best things that ever happened at Conservative Talk Radio because there had to be a forum for the opposition for people to express the other side, and Bill Clinton gave us lots of material.
It wasn't good for the country, but conservative talk radio did in fact benefit.
The last few years, in fact, have been a great challenge for a lot of conservatives.
Rush has talked about this on his own program and spoke after the uh November election about his frustration with what the Republican Congress had become.
and feeling the need to defend some of the things that were very, very hard to defend.
I spoke earlier in this program about the war on Iraq, and I'm still a supporter of the war on Iraq, and I am a supporter of President Bush.
But this is not easy.
It is very, very difficult to continue to fight this war given the circumstances that are there.
It's a lot easier to be against something.
Well, can you imagine the number of things that we'd be able to be against if Hillary were the president of the United States?
I don't want it to happen, but it isn't going to happen.
Let me explain why I think this.
Her whole candidacy is propped up by nothing.
There's just a lot of air there.
She's popular among Democrats because she's the person that is being put out as the Democratic candidate for president.
She's popular among Democrats because they liked her husband.
There's no substance.
There's nothing.
The entirety of her political experience prior to being handed the position of senator from the state of New York was as the wife of a governor of Arkansas and the wife of the president of the United States.
There aren't any accomplishments.
There doesn't appear to be any real passion on any issues.
She right now seems to be the Democratic version of McCain, moving so far to the center solely for the purpose of being elected.
And I think Democrats realize this.
She also has a lot of baggage.
I mean, as much as Bill was able to duck it because he was the ultimate ducker, nothing ever stuck to Bill Clinton.
There is the cattle's future story back out there.
There are the whitewater billing records that were unable to be found for four years.
and those negatives will be used by her Democratic opponents.
She's never really had to confront them.
She had weak opposition in both of her runs in New York State.
But there are other Democrats.
John Edwards wants to be president of the United States.
He's not going to let this opportunity slip by if there are shots that can be taken at Hillary.
The very fact that Barack Obama is attracting the kind of attention that he is from Democrats tells you that there is something fundamentally flawed with the Hillary Clinton candidacy.
You can see that they're looking for somebody else.
If they weren't looking for someone else, why would they be drawn to Obama in the fashion that they are?
Here's what I believe will happen.
I believe that this Obama balloon is going to keep soaring.
And at some point within the next few weeks, I'll give it six.
There's going to be a poll that comes out, and Obama's going to pass Hillary.
Now these polls don't mean a lot at this stage, but I believe Obama is going to take the lead.
Just talk to a Democrat.
I mean, they're just they're rapturous about Barack Obama for a lot of reasons.
He's going to pass Hillary.
And then the stories are going to come out.
Can Obama stop Hillary?
Hillary needs to do this.
How's she going to counter Obama?
And I think she's just going to sag.
And she's going to fall.
And the candidate of the impassioned left is going to become Obama and not Hillary.
And once she starts to fall, I don't see her reversing that momentum.
She does not have the political skills of her husband.
Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, and I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, is one of the greatest politicians of my lifetime.
Look what he's been able to survive.
He can charm the pants off of anyone.
Hillary doesn't have any of that.
When she starts to slide, she's going to come off as shrill.
She's going to question her strategy of moving to the center and try to move back to the left.
And I think that she will do it awkwardly.
She has a tendency to be very condescending when back into a quarter.
I don't think our candidacy is going anywhere.
If you ask me who the Democratic candidate for president is going to be, I'd say it's probably going to be Edwards.
Nobody else agrees with that, but that's what I think.
In the meantime, though, this is Barack Hussein Obama's moment.
I haven't seen anything like this in a long time, where simply by standing up and looking at a television camera, a candidate ascended this quick.
The closest thing I can relate it to perhaps is Perot when he ran the first time around.
Perra came out of nowhere, made a couple of appearances on the Larry King show, and the next thing you know, he was a third party candidate for president.
At one point he was in the in the polls, he was in the mid-30s.
Perot came out of nowhere.
You see the same thing with regard to Obama.
He is an eloquent guy.
The fact that he is black clearly appeals to a lot of Democratic voters.
He doesn't strike people.
He is an unreasonable politician.
He is very well-spoken.
And he has, for whatever reason, a sense of charisma about him.
These...
I'm...
H.R. says he's likable.
He is likable.
He's got an appeal.
He's got that certain something that winning politicians have.
Reagan had it, Clinton had it, Kennedy had it.
Politicians from your own local community that succeed have it.
There's a certain something that's there.
But what has not happened is there hasn't been any kind of examination of Barack Obama.
Nobody's looked into his past, nobody's looked into where he's come from, nobody's looked at his political friends.
He's not been subject to any scrutiny at all.
There was a story that was reported two months ago in the Chicago Tribune.
Shocking.
And I want to share it with you.
Because it tells us a little bit more about Barack Obama.
And since we're all oozing over him, and since he's being put on the cover of Time and Newsweek, I think it might not be a bad idea to find out exactly who this guy is.
Now you do know that he is a United States Senator from Illinois.
You also know that he's also been there for only two years.
Prior to that, he was an Illinois state senator.
And not, by the way, a particularly influential one.
In any event, the Chicago Tribune reported on a very curious land transaction.
The very same day that Barack Obama bought his home last year, 2005.
This isn't 10 years ago.
It's last year.
The same day that Barack Obama bought his home on the south side of Chicago, paid by the way $1,650,000.
The adjacent lot was bought by a guy named Tony Rezco.
The property was originally one property, but the seller decided to divide the property into the property where the home was sitting, and then the lot, the acreage that is next door.
So the property was sold as the home sitting on one lot, and then the vacant lot was sold as a separate property.
The property with the home on it was listed for $1,950,000.
Obama bought that property for $1,650,000, $300,000 less than the asking price.
The adjacent vacant lot was bought the same day by Tony Rezco, and he paid full list price of $625,000.
Now, most of you are thinking, so what?
There's a pretty fascinating so what answer.
But to hear it, you're gonna have to stick with me on this.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh on the IB.
My name is Mark Belling.
I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Dr. Walter E. Williams will be here tomorrow, talking a little bit about a fascinating story that was reported November 1st by the Chicago Tribune.
Barack Obama, the Illinois senator, who is clearly running for the Democratic nomination for president and is being swooned over by the media and a lot of Democrats, bought a house on the south side of Chicago a year ago, paid a million six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
The property was originally larger than when Obama bought it.
The seller had divided the property into two lots, one with a house on it, the other one vacant.
The same day that Obama bought the part of the property that has the house on it for $1,650,000.
A guy named Tony Rezco bought the vacant lot for $625,000.
Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price for his portion of the lot.
Rezco paid exactly at the asking price.
So what's the big deal?
Two months ago, Tony Rezco was indicted by a federal grand jury in Chicago as part of a pay-for-play scandal involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich, also a Democrat.
The allegation is that Tony Rezco was soliciting campaign contributions for Rod Blogovich in exchange for governmental decisions that were made by the Blogevich administration in Illinois.
He is an indicted criminal.
He's an accused political fixer.
The very same day Barack Obama buys a house, this now accused federal felon buys the property right next door.
Is that a coincidence?
Well, Barack Obama and Tony Resco go back a long way.
Tony Rezco is a guy who has always tried to win the favor of Illinois political figures For reasons that are obvious.
He's been a lobbyist and he's been an insider.
He's been somebody who tries to get things done.
Therefore, it has been in his interest to befriend up and coming politicians.
So what do you figure has happened to Tony Rezco's lot in the last year?
Nothing.
He pays $625,000 for a vacant lot and doesn't do anything with it.
In the meantime, Barack Obama has moved into his home and the other portion of the once combined property.
So Barack Obama now has essentially a yard that's much larger than it would be if somebody actually built a house on the vacant lot.
Furthermore, how is it that Tony Rezco paid the full asking price for his part of the property and the seller demanded the full price but was willing to sell the other part of the property for $300,000 less?
This is a pretty serious story because the implication is that Tony Rezco may have helped Barack Obama buy a much more expensive property than he otherwise was able to obtain.
To this day, nothing's been put on the property next door to Barack Obama.
At best, he has the advantage of having a house without having to worry about a neighbor on one side.
At worst, the entire property is essentially his since nobody else is moved in and doing anything with it.
Why did Tony Rezco do this?
And why did Barack Obama work with him on it?
Did he work with him on it?
Well, the following day, the Chicago Sun Times, the competing newspaper to the Chicago Tribune, interviewed Obama about this, and Obama acknowledged that, well, this was a mistake, he should not have done it.
The headline on that story was Obama on Rezco deal.
It was a mistake, quoting from the Chicago Sun Times, U.S. Senator Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now indicted political fundraiser Antoine Tony Rezco in a deal that enlarged the Senator's yard.
I consider this a mistake on my part, and I regret it, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question and answer session about the transaction.
And then it goes on.
Now, I don't know that you can come out and say that this deal was dirty, but it's certainly very, very suspicious that a man who is aspiring to be president of the United States was involved in a land transaction with a now accused federal felon, a guy whose the specific crime is accused of trying to put the fix in on governmental decisions with another prominent Illinois politician.
The Chicago Tribune ran this story, as I said, November 1st.
And they dropped it like a rock.
There's not been anything in that paper since.
The competing paper, the Chicago Sun-Times followed up on it, but that's pretty much been it.
Now, given the fact that the media outlets in this country are doing day after day after day after day after day after day of stories about Senator Barack Obama, wouldn't you think that maybe one of them would go out to Illinois and dig into these records and find out exactly what happened on that land deal?
Do you think for a moment that if a prominent Republican candidate for president had been involved in a real estate transaction as dubious as this one, that the story would not yet be reported by the national media?
As I said, it's been two months since this was first reported.
Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who are listening to me right now on Russia's show have not been aware of it because the national media simply hasn't touched this thing.
At the very least, he ought to be asked about it and try to offer up the explanation.
What I know is this.
If I'm out there in the housing market and have my eye on a property, it sure would be nice if the seller decided to reduce the price of the property by taking a lot of the land and selling it separately to someone else who I happen to know is never going to develop it.
Why that would be a way for me to spend a lot less pro less money on a property that is much larger than I could otherwise afford.
Now, if I did that and I was the United States senator and the guy who came up with the rest of the cash was an indicted federal felon, I would kind of expect that somebody might want to ask some questions about that.
And I hope someone pretty soon does.
I'm Mark Belling.
The uh staff on Russia's program always makes fun of my eating habits when I come to New York to uh do the program.
They have an expectation that since this is considered to be the restaurant capital of the world, probably it isn't, I think Las Vegas is.
But in any event, because there's all these great restaurants here, it's expected that I would go to one of them.
Well, I I don't.
A, I'm here by myself, and B. Yeah.
I I just don't see a reason to really do that when I'm here by myself since I have to get up rather early in the morning to prepare for this program, since I am, after all, going on a national radio show and presumably should have some idea of what it is that I want to talk about.
So I kind of just go to a place that's convenient, and I've been ridiculed for some of these.
You've ridiculed me, right?
Yes, yes.
I I've been I've been ridiculed.
Well, where I went is not all that important, but I had a bad experience last night.
I went into a restaurant, and I ordered something that they said, I said I'd like to have some trans fats, and they said we can't give you any of those here in New York City because they've banned them.
What's going on here?
I I'm not suggesting that we go back to the days of David Dinkins when New York was completely up for grabs in the crime capital of the planet in Times Square was a place that you'd be likelier shot than walk out of.
But New York used to be a city in which you could have a little bit of fun.
You can't smoke anywhere.
All these major streets in New York, they're filled with tourists right now.
In front of all the buildings the tourists can't get around anybody because there's nine trillion people in front of them all smoking because they can't smoke inside any in any of them.
I read in the newspaper about all these starlets that are underage that are drinking in your bars here.
Donald Trump's got a bail his miss USA out of one, but they can't smoke a cigarette in there, even 19 years old and go into a bar, you can't do that.
And now you're governing the kind of fat that you can put on food.
When did this city go from being completely wide open to the ultimate nanny state?
How did that happen?
Yeah, I know, and uh, well, a Republican who pretends to be a Democrat is mayor.
The thing that I I'm not going to have time on today's show to get into this whole food food police movement in our country, but doesn't it seem a little weird that the generation that's doing all of this that's banning all these things and regulating all these things, why we're going to ban smoking in bars, we're banning smoking in restaurants, we're banning smoking here because it's bad for you, and secondhand smoke is bad for you, and now we're going to take care of your food.
You can't eat trans fats.
We're not going to allow a restaurant to cook any other food in trans because trans fats is bad for you.
Isn't it weird that the generation that's giving us all of this was the generation that rebelled against all the rules from its parents?
The baby boomers and the Xers who couldn't stand being told you can't do this, you can't do that.
I remember when I was a kid.
When I'm a parent, I'm never going to tell my kids they can't do this.
I'm never going to tell them they can't do that.
This was the generation that demanded the right to smoke pot and use every kind of illicit drug.
They changed all value all social mores and values.
They were opposed to any kind of repressive notion of what family is, what rules are, what substances you can ingest, and they said that they were not going to just automatically accept authority.
And now they've grown up, grown up, they've gotten a little bit of power, and they are way more authoritarian than their parents ever were.
They're telling you you can't smoke, they're telling you you can't do this.
They're now deciding what you can and can't eat.
And all from the same group that said they were never going to be like you know what?
They're worse.
Now to another story.
This is another one of these where you just kind of scratch your head and you wonder where society's coming from.
Sean Merriman, Star linebacker San Diego Chargers.
As far as I can tell, they're the team that's probably going to win the Super Bowl.
Sean Merriman may well be named NFL defensive player of the year this year.
If he doesn't get it, Jason Taylor, who's a defensive end for the Miami Dolphins, is going to get it.
Jason Taylor yesterday raised a very interesting point that I want to throw out at you.
Jason Taylor says y'all shouldn't vote for Sean Merriman.
He shouldn't be the defensive player of the year because he was suspended for four games for steroid use.
He did indeed have a four-game NFL suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy after testing positive for steroids.
He's returned to the team.
He has had a great season.
Well, the media votes the media votes for this, but he's been named of the Pro Bowl.
I haven't heard anybody raise any qualms at all about any of these honors that are being given to Sean Merriman.
On the other hand, in Major League Baseball, it's pretty clear that Mark McGuire is not going to be voted into the Hall of Fame.
And it's pretty clear that Barry Bonds, if he does pass Hank Aaron's record as baseball's home run king is going to be tainted because of steroid use.
In baseball, the players who are not even caught, suspected, as is the case with Bonds and McGuire, strongly suspected of having used steroids, are dogged with this that somehow what they accomplished was illegitimate.
Yet here's Sean Merriman.
He tested positive for steroids.
He gets his little suspension, and we're going to name him to all of these awards.
Well, what is the difference?
Am I the only person who thinks that that's odd?
Well, Jason Taylor thinks it's odd.
He says you shouldn't vote for Sean Merriman.
He's a guy that violated the drug policy.
He's a guy who's on steroids.
You shouldn't be giving him these awards.
To be consistent, I don't think he should get these awards.
And I'm appalled that Barry Bonds is going to pass Hank Aaron's home run record because I think Barry Bonds probably did get an unfair advantage, and probably so did a lot of other players.
But it is certainly unusual that the standard that we apply to baseball players is not one that we apply to football players.
So I don't think they should vote this award to Sean Merriman.
You you think I'm nuts, don't you?
Do you agree with me or not?
Should a guy who tested positive for steroids be elected to the Pro Bowl?
Should a guy who tested positive for steroids be named defensive player of the year.
Now the league does have a punishment, and he did pay it.
He was suspended for four games and then returned to his team.
But when it comes to then making the decision as to who to honor and who to give awards to, if in one sport we are saying that an individual's accomplishments are tainted because they benefited from the use of steroids and were willing to do that when we haven't even proven that those people did use steroids, although in the case of Bonds the evidence is pretty strong.
In the case of Sean Merriman, we've got a guy who tested positive for them.
Merriman's defense for this was the same defense that everybody who's ever tested positive for steroids was.
Well, I was taking some supplements and I didn't know what was in them, and evidently there was a steroid in them, and for this I deeply apologize.
To Atlanta, Georgia and Pat, Pat, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Mark, you are just right on there.
Thank you.
I just agree with you wholeheartedly.
I think well, I don't I don't know what you said because I didn't hear the rest of it because I was on with this.
Well, you would have agreed with that too.
The whole point made sense.
I was outstanding on the entire segment.
Yes.
Well, I think I really think here's the deal.
I think that I I feel really d sad in my heart because yes, they were talented, they've been working their whole life the whole bit.
But the thing is is there are consequences for those actions.
And if the young people do not see that, it'll never stop.
Well, the the thing that I find curious about this whole thing is that baseball has been under heavy fire for not being more aggressive earlier on with regard to steroids.
And as a result, a lot of players who were probably using steroids had tremendous accomplishments.
It's not a coincidence that the year that the Roger Maris home run record was broken by two players was in the height of the period in which it's believed that steroids were being abused by major league baseball players.
This has been deemed to be a scandal.
I mean, you've got all these sports writers who are saying they'd never vote for bonds for the Hall of Fame.
They'd never vote for uh for Mark McGuire for the Hall of Fame.
Mark McGuire is a guy who is now a subject of ridicule.
I mean, he's hauled before Congress to testify.
In the meantime, you've got a football player who tested positive for this stuff, and they may make him player of the year in the very same year.
I just think it's weird that you would give an honor at all to a guy like Sean Merriman, but for some reason in football, we seem to be saying it's okay to abuse steroids, but in baseball, if you did it, you're a cheater and you're a pariah.
You're Barry Bonds and you're somebody that's terrible.
And what are we going to do about this?
Should we put an asterisk next to your record?
Well, if you're going to put an asterisk next to Barry Bonds' record, it would seem to me that you wouldn't vote a separate award for Sean Merriman, who is the Barry Bonds of Pro Football.
At least that's what I think.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You've got Dr. Walter E. Williams tomorrow Friday.
If you think some of these topics I've been discussing are weird, uh I picked up today's New York Times, which I always do.
You have to read the New York Times just to understand the American left.
They've got a columnist named Bob Herbert, and he his I am not make his column is about the similarities of James Brown and Gerald Ford.
The only thing similar about James Brown and Gerald Ford is they died in the same week.
It's in the New York Times.
He's well, he's their major columnist.
If I tried to do a segment on this show about the promise of James Brown and the promise of Gerald Ford and linked them, you'd think I was nuts.
To Jacksonville, Florida, Morgan, you're on Rush's program.
Mark, I I think you're doing a great job today, Mark, for filling in for Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, listen, uh I really don't buy the comparison between football and baseball players when it comes to steroids.
Um your average baseball player gets such an incredible advantage uh hopped up on steroids.
Look at look at what McGuire and Sosa did in that one year where they were both doing them.
Yeah, in fact, I believe they uh uh didn't they both hit 70 that year or uh close.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And it was pretty obvious looking at both of them.
Their faces were broke out and they were bulging out of every single shirt they had.
In that era, I mean you had baseball players who went from thin men to muscle bound behemoths in one year, and now that baseball's finally cracked down on it, some of these guys shrunk right back down to normal size.
It was very obvious that in baseball there were players who were getting an advantage through the use of steroids, and baseball was looking the other way.
I mean, it was bizarre.
This was something that was a crime, but it was not prohibited by the rules of baseball, and baseball eventually paid the price.
I mean, some of its greatest records may fall by players who were abusing illegal drugs and gaining that edge.
You're right about that.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
And Bonds is exhibit one.
The guy went from being a uh a thin man to uh to a regular bicep boulder there.
But but here's where the the McPearson fails, and I'll tell you why football players are a different breed.
They're going around slamming each other.
And what happens to an offensive or a defensive lineman who's staring across the line at someone who has been doing steroids is not pretty.
These guys get hit so hard, and their recovery time is so short, six five, six days.
Okay, so what's your I would think that that's an argument to treat a football steroid abuser the same way you would a baseball what a steroids do?
They make you bigger, faster, and stronger.
Well, if you're a linebacker, if you've watched Sean Merriman play, he's unbelievable.
He's like 275 pounds, but he plays linebacker.
To say that you don't get an advantage off of that, I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.
I would think that a football player using steroids would have the same advantage as a baseball player, which is why both sports treat them as a violation of the rules.
I mean, he was suspended for four games.
I just question why you would vote a guy so tainted to any kind of award.
He's clearly paid the price in terms of his sport, but to give him an honor and almost reward him for accomplishments that had to be premised at least in part on the use of illicit substances, I don't agree with.
Thank you for the call, Morgan.
Winona, Minnesota, Paul, Paul, it's your turn on Russia's show.
I'm Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark.
Diddles from the bottom end of the what?
I don't think you know where you're going with this, Paul, of what's on your mind.
From the bottom end of the baby boomers, and ditto's from a cheese head, my wife.
Great from racing.
Say, you know, what's different about baseball and football is the way that people perceive the sports.
I mean, baseball is, you know, you look at the players, you look at the the tattoos that you see when you're watching baseball, you don't see any.
You look at football, football has kind of been a free-for-all, you know, basketball, now they're calling it basketball.
Right.
So I think that there's a different level of expectations for baseball players.
Now I agree with you.
What's the difference?
You know, it doesn't matter who's using, who's juicing.
But you know, I think there's a different way that the There is a difference, there's a difference in perception, but I think that would be unfortunate.
The sport in America that has run itself better than any other sport has been the National Football League.
I mean, it's clearly the most popular sport.
It's the sport that captures the attention of more Americans than any other, and Americans love pro football.
I would hate to see the bar lowered by football, and football was way ahead of the other sports in banning steroids.
I mean, the NFL banned steroids 15, 16, 17 years ago.
They were way ahead on this.
You know, Lyle El Zeto, the former uh player for the Denver Broncos, who talked about his own steroid use, he ended up dying.
Well, the NFL picked up on that early on.
They've been doing testing from the very beginning.
They've always been tough on it.
I'm just questioning here the reaction of fans and writers who are willing to exalt Sean Merriman who is caught breaking a rule of that league, whereas they have a completely different attitude with regard to baseball.
And I would hate to see football, which is a great sport, slip into this notion of just tolerating the same stuff that baseball used to say uh was just fine.
Thanks, Paul.
Let's try Bakersfield, California and Brian.
Brian, it's your turn on Russia's show.
Well, great to be on uh on the EIB network, uh Mark, and thanks for taking my call.
You were uh remarking about the seeming contradiction between the sixties generation who were uh ultra rebellious uh regarding everything from pont uh down the list to those now of the same generation who are so seemingly bent upon uh excising things like uh trans saturated fat from our menus and that sort of thing.
And doesn't this seem to be a contradiction?
Well, to my mind, there's no contradiction whatsoever because the two represent a an aching need to control the parameters of life uh and the reality.
Well, you're probably right.
I mean, you're probably right.
The hang-up that they had with the rules of their parents was they weren't their rules.
They wanted to decide.
They wanted to do whatever they want to do, and now that they're in charge, they still want to do whatever they want to do, and they want to enforce their own set of rules.
In other words, they want it their own way.
It's been a problem with our own politics.
I mean, you can take you can take it to as many levels as you want with regard to the welfare state that we've created in our country.
The whole problem with the with the Republican Congress earmarking everything, everybody wants me, me, me, me, me.
The point that I was trying to make with regard to all of this excessive regulation going on is we're kind of losing something along the lines of individual liberties and freedoms in the process.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush, and I appreciate your joining me the last couple of days, Dr. Walter E. Williams, who is one of a kind will be here tomorrow.
Now, if you didn't know who said this and you heard the following quote.
Who would you presume it came from?
I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in him and who will never disappoint Any honest believer.
I call on you not to hate, because hate does not leave space for a person to be fair, and it makes you blind and closes all doors of thinking.
Now you may know who said that.
First of all, if you're a Christian as I am, that's what you believe.
It's the essence of why we're here and where we think we're going.
But if you had heard that comment, who would you have thought that it came from?
That's what Saddam is saying in his letter.
That's Saddam Hussein, the guy that killed all the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein who waged the war.
Saddam Hussein.
I'm Mark Gelling.
▲
Export Selection