All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
February 1, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
For a simple reason, I am right.
And you need courage to listen to this program and recognize that I am right.
We find the truth on this program.
And if you don't have the courage to face the truth, you will go nuts.
And then hopefully you will call.
Telephone number if you want to call, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
All right.
Just watch a little bit of the press conference.
These two guys that deposited those nine phony, hoaxy electronic devices at bridges and other spots in Boston.
They threw a scare in the whole town yesterday.
These guys from a third-party company hired by Turner broadcast.
I can still Turner broadcasts ultimate responsibility because hire a third-party marketing firm to go out there and do your PR for you, your marketing.
I mean, you still got to know what their plan is.
I would think that you would sign off on it at some point.
Anyway, these two guys, I saw them being dragged in on videotape, and they had a press conference.
And one of them has got some pretty wild long hair.
And he told the press, he told the drive-bys he's only going to answer questions about his hair.
And so the drive-bys, why did you do that?
What did you do?
You have no concept.
It's not a hair question.
I'm not answering it.
That's not in the next question.
It's not a hair question.
It's funny as it can be.
I don't know these guys.
I don't know who they are other than the name of the company they work for.
But just to see them just toying with the drive-by media at the press conference.
You know, of course, everything is life and death.
It's dead serious.
This is horrible.
This is terrible.
That's not a hair question.
I'm here to answer questions about my hair.
Get this.
U.S.NewsandworldReport.com, the website.
The link here says, bulletin.
The U.S. News political bulletin has learned Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly concerned that President Bush will order airstrikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks.
They cite as evidence the tough warnings from senior administration officials, including the commander-in-chief, that Iranian help for insurgents in Iraq is leading to the death of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.
Democrat insiders tell a political bulletin here at U.S. News that they suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq.
Now, keep in mind, this whole thing is a bulletin at U.S. News because Democrats called them up and said, this is what we fear.
Under this scenario, Bush would not invade Iran with ground forces or zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities.
But under the limited bombing scenario, Bush could ask for a congressional vote of support, Democrat insiders predict, which many Democrats would feel obligated to endorse or risk looking like they weren't supportive of the troops.
This is about the dumbest preemptive thing I have ever heard of.
Bombing Iran will also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq, Democrats told U.S. News, and cause a rally-round the president reaction among Americans, fretted Democrats to U.S. News, at least for a while.
But Democrats add in their call to U.S. news that an attack on Iran would probably be condemned around the world and would precipitate an Iranian response that could dramatically worsen Mideast turmoil and have unforeseen consequences that could be extremely damaging to the United States of America.
You know, this is possibly, possibly here, a classic case of projection.
The Democrats suspect this because this is what they think they would do and maybe would already have done.
But I suspect it's more than that.
You know, the news coming out of Washington, to be quite honest with you on this, is not heartening.
There are more and more Republicans in the House and the Senate who are rolling over on the resolution, the non-binding resolution not supporting the surge.
By the way.
What is this, Denise?
The Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the surge could actually be 48,000 troops.
Yes, you heard me right.
The Congressional Budget Office, which has nothing to do with troop deployments, is projecting the surge.
So the CBO is saying Bush is tricking us.
The amount of money he's requested, it'll actually pay for 48,000 surge troops.
So that's out there.
But you've got John Warner who is caving with Carl Levin.
You've got McCain trying to broker it.
You've got Republicans in the Senate and the House.
And in the Senate, it's more problematic because the Republicans don't have any power in the House, but in the Senate they do.
They can stop anything in the House or in the Senate.
They've got 49 votes.
That means that Dingy Harry's got one Democrat in the hospital.
So we have to go out and get 10 votes from somewhere to pass anything.
The Republicans really do, if they just had the Gonads, could control anything.
But they're caving.
One by one, we keep hearing about it.
And it's a little troublesome.
It's a here come the Democrats.
And look at the way you have to understand this wag-the-dog Iran attack, worrying Democrat story that's in U.S. news is very, very simple.
They are invested in defeat.
They cannot survive defeat.
Not politically.
If this thing goes well, I mean, they cannot survive victory.
I'm sorry.
They cannot survive victory.
If the surge, whatever number it is, 21,500, 48,000, if the military action works, they are so far gone.
They are so far out, they cannot take credit for it.
And Pelosi has blown whatever little chance they had of taking credit for it by heading over to the Middle East and coming back and saying it's even worse than she thought while she was here.
So this business about Bush might be in the process of studying various forms of action to take to stop the Iranian pipeline of aid, assistance, personnel, and so forth into Iraq really scares them because that might rally the country.
That might get people understanding how serious this is.
And it might put them in the untenable position of having to vote for it because they can't afford to actually demonstrate they don't support the troops.
What they're really afraid of here is that Bush will take action that will be meaningful here.
Now, Dick Morris wrote a piece the other day and said that Iran clearly is a problem.
And if the war on terror is a serious matter, Iran has to be dealt with.
But his caveat was that if Bush makes it look like any action we do or might take in Iran is related to Iraq, that nobody will support it because nobody supports Iraq.
I disagree with this profoundly, particularly since the news is out now that the Iraqis are daily infiltrated by Iranians.
And we've known this for quite some time.
You'd have to think military commanders and others on the ground who are serious about victory over there cannot achieve it unless the aspects in which Iran is involved are dealt with.
And the Democrats are petrified.
They are scared to death.
They have wagered almost everything on being able to get Bush to kowtow to them.
They have wagered everything on maybe being able to get Bush to change policy, to start withdrawing troops, to listening to the American people.
And it's just the opposite.
He is not wavering or caving in any way.
And it's got them troubled because they've put all of their chickens in this basket, all their eggs, whatever the phrase is.
So, U.S. News and World Report, their bulletins page, has learned, quote unquote, I wonder how, Democrats on Capitol Hill increasingly concerned that President Bush will order airstrikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks.
And they're really worried that he will ask for a congressional vote of support because Democrats feel obligated to endorse the support or risk looking like they aren't supportive of the troops.
They also worry that bombing Iran would take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq.
And see, this is cool and interesting because this, if U.S. News has got it right here, as far as what the Democrats have told them, the Democrats have done everything they can to isolate Iraq as something totally unnecessary and unrelated to the war on terror.
Anyway, things are heating up.
And while this is happening, Republicans in the House and Senate are in the process of caving.
And it's not just on the war.
There's a story here in the stack.
Let me see how close it is to the top.
Let's see.
Well, I don't have it right here at the top, and I got to go to a break here.
But the bottom line here is that the Democrats in the House have just passed a sweepingly large spending bill, one of the largest in history.
And right along voting for it with them were the Republicans.
We'll be back in just a moment.
Stay with us.
Now, I want to go back just to make one point, make it indelibly in your mind, ladies and gentlemen.
This is U.S. News and World Report, the bulletin.
U.S. News political bulletin has learned blah, blah, blah, blah.
There's one passage in this.
Bombing Iran, this is Democrats as sources, unnamed Democrats talking to the people at U.S. News.
Bombing Iran would also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq and cause a rally round the president reaction from many Americans, at least for a while.
So the translation of the Democrats are worried that any action against Iran might get the country behind the president.
Did I just say that?
Yes, I said it because I am quoting them.
They said it.
Now, if that doesn't tell you, and I know most of you already have this figured out, what their motivation is, then I don't think anything else will.
Here we are in the war on terror.
Here we are dealing with people who have it out for us.
I mean, there's no other way to put it.
And Democrats are worried that bombing Iran might get the country behind the president.
Prudes, I know what I'm talking about.
They cannot afford victory.
They cannot.
They cannot permit it.
They cannot allow it.
Collegeville, Pennsylvania.
Charles, thanks for waiting.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Two quick points.
All of us articulate people out there know you passed 20 million years ago.
So the first caller was out to lunch.
Yeah, but he's worthwhile.
I mean, that's what we in the business call a great call.
Yeah.
The other point is yesterday you were unfair to Iraq in comparing it to Philadelphia.
I realize we have some 800 servicemen killed there last year up against the 400 in Philadelphia.
But what you're missing here is Philadelphia is a city of only 1.5 million population.
No, I mentioned that.
Where Iraq has 25 million.
So with 16 times the population, you're eight times as likely to get killed in Philadelphia as you are in Iraq.
Yes, that's a good point.
In fact, do you know the place in the world where it is, somebody's run these numbers, and it's Kingston, Jamaica.
You have a far greater chance of dying just going about your day in Kingston, Jamaica than you do in Baghdad.
Oh, absolutely.
But that's just, here's another way to look at it, Charles.
That's just one city.
Philadelphia is just one city.
Let's start talking about Washington.
Let's talk about New York.
Oh, absolutely.
D.C. was the murder capital of the world for the longest time.
Right.
With the most stringent gun control laws as well.
But the point here is, is that the left is focusing the troop withdrawal on death.
Soldiers are dying.
The soldiers are dying.
We're up to 3,000 now in four years.
The soldiers are dying.
Well, there's far more.
There are far more people dying in American cities than in Iraq.
Just another way of trying to frame their argument as phony, disingenuous, and dangerous.
Ladies and gentlemen, I missed this, and I have an excuse.
I don't read the Washington Post blogs, and I don't read the New York Times blogs.
But there was a post yesterday on the Washington Post blog by a man named William Arkin.
They have hired William Arkin to be their expert on national and homeland security.
And he posted a blog yesterday which just had everybody who read it roiling.
And I want to read it to you.
He writes, I've been mulling over an NBC nightly news report from Iraq last Friday, which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks.
That's why it's news.
And I'm also sure that no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everybody expressing their opinion, even though those who wear the uniform of the U.S. Army.
But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
What happened was in this NBC report, a bunch of soldiers said they're sick and tired of being told that they are supported as troops, but that their mission is not supported.
And this just caused this columnist here, this blogger William Arkin, to blow up.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how, quote, troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war.
Many take it personally, believing it's also criticism of what they've been fighting for.
First up was a 21-year-old junior enlisted man, Tyler Johnson, whom Engels said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing.
You may support or say we support the troops, but so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for.
It just doesn't make sense to me, the troop said.
And another guy is quoted and so forth.
And here is William Arkin's reaction.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq war and the president's handling of it, do still offer their support to them and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and the Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it's the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even anti-war protests, at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy.
We just don't see very many baby killer epithets being thrown around these days.
No one in uniform is being spit upon.
So we pay the soldiers a decent wage.
We take care of their families.
We provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them.
We support them in every possible way.
And their attitude is that we should, in addition, roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they're above society.
I can imagine some post-9-11 moment when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those of the National Security Establishment feel that these same frustrations.
But in my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it.
They don't understand that the threat from terrorism is, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in.
I'll accept as well that they're young and naive and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never-changing situation in Iraq.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.
I don't believe America needs a draft, though I imagine that we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
And then he goes on to basically refer to them as mercenaries.
They're simply volunteering and fighting for the money and so forth.
His point here was that the troops should shut up, even though he acknowledges that they have First Amendment rights, that they should not be critical of the American people.
They should not tell the American people that they don't understand what they're talking about.
It's just, folks, it is a, this is what happens.
A blog is not edited.
I don't know if the Washington Post let this guy up without it being edited or whatever, but this is exactly the kind of sentiment that is felt throughout the far left and the anti-war hate America crowd, and it's been embodied perfectly by William Arkin here on his blog at the Washington Post.
Brief timeout, more phone calls and other exciting things too, right around the corner.
A couple observations here about this William Arkin piece.
It really has to be read to be believed.
But what got him all fired up was a bunch of troops out of the state of Washington who were asked a question, how do you feel about such widespread criticism of you and the mission and so forth?
And they answered the question.
They said, we don't like it.
They didn't say the American people should be shut up.
They didn't say the American people should be silent about it.
They just answered a question.
It is this William Arkin who, after reading their answers to the questions they were asked, suggests they shut up.
And then he has the audacity to call them mercenaries.
Then he corrects himself and calls them volunteers.
Do you know what a mercenary is by definition, Mr. Snerdley?
What?
Do you tell me?
Tell me what is a mercenary.
That's right.
Well, particularly a paid-for soldier fighting for a country not his own.
It's not even bandy about the term that these people are mercenaries.
It's just, and of course today there's been so much reaction to this.
Arkin says this reaction is great, proves him right.
All the knuckleheads responding to him prove just how.
And he supposedly served in the military from 74 to 78 in the Intel division somewhere in the Army.
I'm not exactly clear about it.
But anyway, the value of it is to simply illustrate that this whole notion that the left supports the troops but doesn't support the mission.
They don't support the troops, and they resent the troops, and they hate it when the troops speak up, and they think the troops are a bunch of Doomkoffs, mercenary volunteers, on a wasted, worthless mission and so forth.
And that's the value of it, is to illustrate, for once and for all, without any editing, without somebody getting hold of it, say, whoa, we can't say that.
It's just out there.
Here is Kenny in Roanoke, Virginia.
Kenny, thanks for the call, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Been listening to your program for a long time, and I've been a voting Republican for a long time.
However, I do, you know, I want to respond to the U.S. News report that you was talking about, how the Democrats are concerned we may strike Iran.
I have to tell you something, Kenny.
I mean, I don't want to be disrespectful, but you don't sound like a Republican to me.
Yes, sir.
I'm a Republican.
Well, I'm not a registered Republican, but I know that.
I can spot him a mile away when you're not.
I knew it.
I think Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest.
But I do think.
I think Harry Truman was one of the greatest.
It doesn't make me a Democrat.
That's true.
But I do think our Republican Party has changed a lot, and I am concerned they have not showed a trustworthiness.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Even the president himself has admitted that.
And how should we trust this intelligence or this current administration talking about these things in Iraq?
Well, I mean, in Iran.
Kenny, can you hang on here just a second?
Sure.
I just exhaled some cigar smoke, and I looked up, and I looked at the vent where the cigar smoke, and it is filthy up there.
So we've got to get the cleaning crew in here.
I mean, it looks like it hadn't been dusted off in a long time.
Oh, cram it.
Don't inhale these things, and don't tell me imagine my lungs.
I'm just telling you it needs to be clean.
Kenny, what were you saying?
The Republicans in Iran and WMD, what was it?
Well, I just, I don't think the Democrats are always wrong about everything they say.
They do have some legitimate concerns.
Oh, yeah, of course, of course.
Absolutely right.
Well, the problem is it's the Democrats that are worried here.
It's the Democrats who are not objecting.
The Democrats are not suggesting that things that are coming out of Iran are not coming out of Iran.
The Democrats are not suggesting that the Iranians are lying when they say they want to blow Israel off the map.
The Democrats are not suggesting that the Iranians are not in Iraq ambushing American troops.
The Democrats have not denied reports that the Iranians are manufacturing and distributing the IEDs, those explosives.
I'm not sure where you're, this U.S. news story is the result of Democrat panic over the fact that Bush might take some action to stop it, and that could rally the American people to him.
I understand that.
But what I'm saying is the intelligence told us all these things about Iraq, which just about none of it was true.
No, no, no, no.
That's not the correct way to look at it.
We know that he had weapons of mass destruction because he used them.
Look at it.
I'm tired of giving this history lesson.
And I'm not going to.
I've wasted enough time with this.
You don't want to know the truth.
You're calling here for your own little version of propaganda.
I know who you people are.
You are little Democrats, and you're out there getting marching orders for somewhere, somebody, to come here and get yourselves on the real shows that are listened to because your own aren't.
And this is the way you get your little propaganda stuff out there, and you try to preface it all by saying, I've been a Republican all my life, and I really love Ronald Reagan.
You can't fool me.
I have been going through the history lesson of what happened in Iraq for as many years as we've been in Iraq.
And you know it as well as I do.
You're just not interested in the truth, Kenny.
And nothing you say could convince me otherwise.
John in San Diego, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
John in San Diego, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
This bomb scare in Boston is not a hoax.
I think it's a mistake, and I think it's very irresponsible to call it a hoax.
A hoax would be if somebody purposely intended these devices to be thought of as dangerous.
But I can't believe that these people are, and yourself included, are calling this a hoax.
Well, you may have a point.
I call it a hoax because that's what the drive-bys are calling it.
Since I have you on the line, Rush, have you seen the video of the Bohemian Grove ceremony that Alex Jones produced that's on Google Video?
No, been invited to Bohemian Grove, but I've never been there.
And I've not seen the video.
Do you know about the activities within the Grove?
Can you talk about that?
No, because I've never been there.
Look, here's all I know is that it's a bunch of elitists and power brokers who conduct secret meetings to take over the world, and they run around nude.
It's all men.
No women are allowed.
And they run around and you can find them going to a bathroom on a side of trees and so forth.
And they have people come out and make speeches to them and all that.
And I know it was started by members of the San Francisco Symphony way, way, way back who were shunned from San Francisco society.
So they formed their own little club there up in Northern California.
And it's, yeah, yeah, I've, where do you, where do you find these people?
Where do you?
Have you ever heard of the Bohemian Grove?
Oh, you haven't?
He believes the Bohemian Grove is the CFR in the woods.
The Bohemian Grove was started by members of the San Francisco Symphony or some orchestra way, way back, many, many, many years ago, shunned by San Francisco society.
They have camps.
It goes on for three or four weeks up in the Russian River area of Northern California.
And there are members from all over the world, and they can take guests.
There are people that come out and speak to them.
It's rustic living.
It's great food.
It's great cooking.
But people believe that it is nothing more than a secret meeting of world conspiracists who are out to take over the world's money supply and all these other things.
I've been asked to speak at the Bohemian Grove, and I'll guarantee you this, Kenny.
No, who was the hung up?
Who was this guy's name?
John?
John in San Diego.
John, I guarantee you, if the Bohemian Grove is what you think it is, I would never have been invited there as many times, nor would I have been invited to go out and make speakers.
Some of my best golf buddies are members of the place, and they go out there and do it.
It's just a social thing.
It's just a pure social thing.
And they do bring in entertainment and speakers.
And it's rustic living out in the Russian River.
And everybody has these fearful conspiracies and theories about it.
Christine in Scottsdale, Arizona, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yes.
Good morning, Mr. Limbaugh.
How are you?
Fine.
In fact, Christine, could you hold on?
I've got to tell this story.
Certainly.
One of the myths that always goes around about the Bohemian Grove is that if you do go, since it's all men, you can walk around nude if you want.
You don't have to get dressed or any of that.
You might even see George Schultz relieving himself on the side of a tree.
So one night, some years ago, I was invited to a dinner in Washington of the American Spectator, Bob Tyrrell's fantastic, fabulous magazine, a website.
And I was seated next to the former Treasury Secretary, the late, great William Simon.
And he said, you got to get out to the Grove.
And I said, you know, I thought he had a sense of humor.
I said, I'd love to get out there because I would love to see George Schultz relieving himself on the side of a tree.
And he looked, who told you that, why?
That would never, who, I can't believe it.
I'm shrinking in my seat because I thought he'd understand the humor because I thought there's something everybody, and he was profoundly offended that that's what the reputation of Grove was.
And I'm talking about George Schultz, the former Secretary of State.
Look, I'm probably ruining any chance I'll ever have of being invited back, but I'm just telling you these are the popular myths about it when it's actually harmless.
It's just three or four weeks in the summer where people can go out and have a good time.
When they're tired of playing golf, they go to Grove.
That's it.
All right, Christine, thanks for holding on for that explanation.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
And I'd like to say hello also from my husband, Jeff, who's been listening to your show since the beginning.
Thank you.
So I called this morning because I hear a lot of callers that they have questions.
They wonder a lot about how people come to the point, how these liberals come to the point where they're so filled with hatred that they're unable to move past themselves.
They harbor so much negativity.
And a lot of your callers seem to be genuinely perplexed and hurt.
And I feel that I do have a fairly unique perspective that I could perhaps shed a little light on some of the questions that your callers have about that.
All right.
Can you hold on through a commercial break?
Certainly.
I would love for you because I got to take one.
If I don't take one now, then the next one's going to be late, and the segment following will be short and so forth.
You know, you're right.
People, particularly conservatives, look at liberals and don't understand it.
They don't understand the motivation.
What could make them hate the country?
What could make them think the country needs to be taught a lesson?
I'm to the point where I don't really care why they do what they do.
All I know is they need to be defeated.
But I would love to hear your explanation.
So sit tight.
We'll come back and get it from you right after this.
Okay, back to Christine in Scottsdale.
Yes, you must be a former radical.
Right?
Yes.
If I can take just a moment, I want to illustrate my background for your listeners so they have a point of reference.
Right, right, right, right.
Go right ahead.
I was raised predominantly by my mother, who was a hippie.
We lived on a commune in Washington.
There was a very, very, very laxed, non-traditional lifestyle, open use of drugs, you know, everything you basically think of when you think of a very liberal lifestyle.
That's how I was raised by my mother.
My father, conversely, he is a religious right conservative.
He just retired with two pensions as a school teacher.
May I ask you a question about the commune?
Did it have a collective in there where you could go buy your beans and soya and all that?
Well, sir, what we did was we harvested cherries from our orchard and used the money to, you know, like, you know, buy resources to make our own pottery and clothing and so forth.
Well, they were raping the countryside in order to have a living.
Okay, like I said, conversely, my father was my other example.
He was, like I said, he has two pensions.
He was a lifelong school teacher, and he was an honorable man serving his country in the National Guard and a very good person all around.
That's my background.
I grew up with most of my mother's influences.
I ended up being very active in the number one environmental organization, of course, Greenpeace and PETA.
I hope I can say those names on the air.
And so this is where I began, and I have gone from there to the point where I just finished now in the last year or so helping to try and re-elect J.D. Hayworth.
So this is the span of where I have been to where I am now.
What I want to explain to your listeners who seem to have a genuine interest in this, when I became involved, you have to remember two things.
Number one, I was very surrounded by a lot of people in a community that were each extolling the virtues of a very tolerant, non-judgmentalist society.
This was my foundation.
The people that I'm seeing all seem very compassionate, you know, looking out for the welfare of their fellow men, all of which are very admirable qualities.
The problem was that they did not incorporate both sides of any argument.
They would not listen to oppositional points of view.
So they weren't tolerant.
Correct.
Well, they were tolerant of intolerant, which is sort of a juxtaposé, as it were.
Yes.
And how this happens, so your listeners understand how this actually happens inside someone's head or your mind or your heart.
Liberalism attracts a lot of idealists.
They want to see change.
They have a sense of compassion about them.
And the conclusion that you come to is that the world has problems.
And if the majority of people assume a conventional lifestyle, then how they look at it is that conventionalism must be the cause of the suffering.
And so from there, you look to non-conventionalism or new or pioneering methods to see whether or not you can actually assert a kinder, gentler world state of being, as it were.
And that's what I did.
That was my platform.
Also, you have to remember that a lot of people that are attracted to the left, liberal people, themselves live unconventional lifestyles, and they're the focus of a lot of hatred and intolerance.
And so they already have a lot of anger and resentment.
They've suffered on behalf of if they're gay or whatever makes them different than the large part of the bell curve, so to speak.
So your foundation is a lot of people, which are actually very nice people, trying to institute a better change.
And then also a lot of people who have these inbuilt seeds of resentment against society because they are not accepted.
Does that make sense so far?
So all of it makes sense.
I mean, it sounds like they're lost.
They're shunned.
They don't fit in.
They don't want to be judged.
And because they know they already don't fit in, they're a little odd.
At the same time, those in the commune who do live the conventional lifestyle that they criticize think, well, they are capable of it because they understand it.
They are not being seduced by it.
Exactly.
And most people can't understand it, so they have to live the commune style.
Exactly.
And if I could have just a moment or two more, I want to explain an evolution here.
Essentially, there's a...
I've got one minute.
Okay.
So what happens is that you get to the point where this hatred surmounts your ability to listen reasonably to the opposite argument.
And I got to the point where, now I was very unconventional when it came to being a liberal to an extent because my father being a veteran, I have always understood where the gift of our freedom comes from and how it is perpetuated.
And I was the only person in Greenpeace who carried around a Glock 2310 millimeter.
I have always questioned, and I was able to come to the point where when I began to question what they were saying, I saw these inbuilt hypocrisies about, you know, what the Democrats were saying versus what they were actually doing in Congress and Senate about laws and civil rights and things.
And that I started, and it was almost like an awakening, like one becomes out of a cult or something.
There's this incredible sense of disillusionment that follows, and where you wake up and you have to face your own pride.
You have to step out of that and out of this loathing that you have for yourself.
You know, I've got to stop you because I've got to go to a break here.
But the self-loathing and the hatred of all of the reasons that you gave is a good explanation.
Thanks so much for the call, Christine.
I wish I had more time, but okay, folks, a big hour to go here on the EIB Network and the Rush Limbaugh program.
We'll get started with all of it right after this top of the hour timeout.
▲
Export Selection