All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
February 26, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
Greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, doctor of democracy, America's real anchor man, and America's conservative rock.
We are here at 800-282-2882 on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Full week of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Let's go straight to the audio soundbites.
This is quite interesting to me.
Yesterday, on Meet the Depressed, Carl Levin, a Democrat senator from Michigan, was the guest of Tim Russert.
And one of Russert's questions to Carl Levin was, Senator Levin, if in fact we withdrew most of the troops by March of 08, which is your goal, and all-out civil war broke out, complete total chaos in Iraq, what do you do then?
What they say is that pulling the troops out will lead to a civil war, where as a matter of fact, that's the direction we're heading with all of our troops in and more troops coming in.
That's the path we're on, is towards an all-out civil war and chaos.
It's now a haven for terrorists.
It wasn't before we attacked Iraq, but it now is.
There are now 5,000 to 6,000 al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
There weren't any, or there were just a handful, prior to the war.
Now they're there because of the policies of this administration.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, Are we talking about civil war here?
Are we talking about war with terrorists?
There's going to be an all-out.
I thought the Murthy plan said if we get out, Al-Qaeda will leave.
Sounds like Levin is saying the same thing.
So essentially what we have here is Russert to Carl Levin, but what if civil war breaks out?
Do they have any idea how uninformed and irresponsible and simplistic this is and how dangerous it is?
There's no civil war in the north, in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
There's no civil war in the south, in the Basra area.
This is a chairman of a committee.
Does he realize there's more to Iraq than what you see on TV news within, say, 50 kilometers of Baghdad?
Baghdad is not Iraq any more than Washington, D.C. is America.
What goes on in Baghdad stays in Baghdad unless we cut and run, and then it might spread to the whole country.
If we do pull out of there, there might be a civil war in the whole country.
I wouldn't even call it a civil war.
I would just call it al-Qaeda would run in there and do their best to take over the whole place and probably some sort of a power-sharing deal with Iran.
But this isn't funny.
This is irresponsible on the part of Senator Levin here.
If he gets a question about civil war and says our being there is what's causing a civil war, then he goes on to say that there are 5,000 to 6,000 Al-Qaeda people in Iraq.
They're fighting us.
I thought if it's a civil war, they're fighting each other.
This is nonsense, folks.
It's pure nonsense.
These are the people that own defeat.
Make no mistake about it.
Their ownership of defeat is increasing.
As I say, the Washington Post with a story this week on how upset the Democrats are with Mirtha.
In fact, here's the headline, Murtha stumbles on Iraq funding curbs.
The plan was bold by tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness.
Democrats believe they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.
But a botched launch by the plan's author, Jack Murtha, has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the Democrats back to the drawing board just a week before the scheduled legislative action.
And the source here, this is a Washington Post story, the source here, is a bunch of Democrat lawmakers.
Jim Matheson of Utah.
If this is going to be legislation, it's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, this is a non-starter.
It's an absolute non-starter.
Matheson, by the way, is a leader of the conservative blue dog Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Freshman Representative Joe Sestak, Democrat Pennsylvania, retired Navy admiral, who was propelled into politics by the Iraq War, said that Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategery, but Sestak, an open and outspoken war opponent, is a bit wary of a proposal that would influence military operations.
I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience.
He said, he's going to be as politic as he can.
He's a freshman.
He's a nobody.
But he's very guardedly here trying to say that this is utterly disastrous, Mirtha's plan.
So what happened was Murtha announces is he goes to this far-left website, movecongress.org, which is part of the moveon.org munch, and announces the slow bleed, which is no reinforcements, no new equipment, no this, basically hamstringing the Bush administration's ability as commander-in-chief to wage war.
It would not be possible, by the way, this would not stand constitutional muster, but they're still going to try it.
As Schumer said last week, they're going to continue to paper the administration with resolution after resolution after resolution so that they can happily recreate the same scenario as Vietnam.
So Murtha announces his plan before the President's Week recess, and then he didn't talk anymore about it.
Democrat leaders failed to step into the vacuum.
Republicans relentlessly attacked the plan that they called a strategery to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds.
And by the end of the recess, Murtha's once-promising strategy was in tatters.
Tom Andrews, a former House member and anti-war activist who helped Murtha with his internet rollout, was mad.
The issue to me is, what's the state of the backbone of the Democrat Party?
How will they respond to this counterattack?
Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren't even on the field.
And it also says here that Pelosi endorsed the plan in concept, but she never got the details from Murtha.
The plan surfaced February 15th in this website, moveon or movecongress.org.
So even Pelosi was sandbagged on this.
Now, this guy, Tom Andrews, former House member, anti-war activist, talks about how the Republicans are throwing touchdown passes because the Democrats aren't even on the playing field.
What he's talking about is that no Democrats spoke up to back Murtha and the slow bleed plan.
Senate Democrats got on board in their own way with their threats of continuing resolutions and so forth.
And you've heard Carl Levin on Meet the Press with his misguided and irresponsible view of all this.
But the reason why the Democrats didn't step forward to fill the vacuum is that I don't think any of them have the guts.
They've got the guts to talk, folks.
They've got the guts to bellyache and moan and whine, and they've got the belly ache, the guts to offer a bunch of non-binding resolutions.
But when it comes to actually putting teeth into what they want to do, i.e. pull troops out of there, they don't have the guts to do it.
The simplest way to do it would be cut funding.
They don't have the guts to even introduce that legislation.
So you have to wonder what is their real desire here.
I would not doubt that they want to really get troops out of there, but I think even more than that, they just want to continue to harass the administration as part of the party's campaign for the White House leading up to 2008.
One more Carl Levin bite.
Russert's question is this.
Vice President Cheney talked about Democrats this way.
I think, in fact, if we're to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Mirtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy.
The Al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they'll win because we quit.
Is your proposal in effect, Senator Levin, embracing the al-Qaeda strategy?
Vice President Cheney's credibility is pretty close to zero.
He's the one who said that the insurgency was in its last throes.
He's the one who hyped the intelligence before the war.
So I don't think that his comments carry an awful lot of weight with the American people.
I think he's wrong about Al-Qaeda.
I think Al-Qaeda likes us in Iraq.
I think when we're in Iraq, a Western occupation of a Muslim country for four years plus now, Al-Qaeda, I believe, has the target that they want, has the propaganda that they want, and it plays right into their hands.
So I disagree with his analysis, but he doesn't have much credibility left in any event.
Al-Qaeda wants us in Iraq?
I've never heard him say that.
I've heard just the opposite, that they want us out of there.
Al-Qaeda wants us in Iraq.
We're the target they want.
They have the propaganda that they want plays right into their hands.
How do they have that propaganda, Senator?
Could it be through people like you?
Could it be through people in the drive-by media?
Could it be that you are the facilitators of their propaganda?
You sound more like you're sympathetic to their cause and their desires than you are to the United States interests in this sector.
Amazing.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh on a roll behind a golden EIB microphone here at the prestigious and distinguished Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Boy, they are out for Mitt Romney.
Saw this over the weekend.
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practices by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives, and at least one of his great-great-grandfathers had 12.
Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of Mitt Romney.
This is an AP story by Jennifer Dobner and Glenn Johnson.
Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists.
She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow over her own husband's multiple marriages.
Romney's great-great-grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives.
In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle Orson Pratt became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.
Now, other Mormons have run for the White House.
Romney's father in 1968, Senator Hatch in 2000.
But Mitt Romney's stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines.
It's unbelievable.
How many wives has Romney had?
He may be the one guy in the race that's only had one.
Rudy's been divorced.
McCain's been divorced.
I don't know about some of the others, but this is now why are they doing this?
You might ask, why this kind of a hit piece on Mitt Romney?
Obviously, they're afraid of the guy.
They're trying to destroy him.
This is just this classic drive-by media stuff that is designed to cause problems for Romney.
When he doesn't promote this, he doesn't advocate it.
He has not lived it.
How many of you have a family member or two whose lives, were they to be made public, would maybe not embarrass you.
Well, yes, embarrass you.
As Ross Perot said, we all have at least one crazy aunt in the basement, crazy uncle, or what have you.
This is, you know, we can't, we're not supposed to analyze the religion of anybody else.
But here we go analyzing Mitt Romney's in this really despicable fashion.
Here's Ryan in Hollywood.
Ryan, thanks for waiting and welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hey, thanks a lot, Rush.
I just wanted to give a comment here after watching the award show.
I decided that Hollywood is totally out of touch with the rest of America.
They have no idea what really people want to see out there.
And I think the award show kind of just well, let me address that.
There are two schools of thought on this.
Let's say that you're, well, let's just talk about these people.
Let's say that you're the Academy, and you've got these awards every year, and you've got on ABC four hours of primetime television in America and around the world.
And you can look at this opportunity in one of two ways.
You can say, okay, we're here to serve our audience, and we're here to entertain our audience, and we are here to build upon the trust that our audience has with us and do a show that the audience would like to see, that exposes our talents, that airs our abilities and so forth.
Or they could look at it as total insiders, and they could say, look, this is our night.
And we're awarding people within our business for their achievements and their accomplishments based on votes of people in our business.
We're not tallying the votes of the movie going public.
We're not tallying the votes of anybody else.
This is what we think.
And I think more and more Hollywood has chosen the latter way to go, which is fine.
I mean, they can do with it whatever they want.
But they're passing up a great opportunity because they're in some financial trouble.
I mean, DVD sales are leveling off.
Box office receipts are down.
Just the occasional exception comes out and scores big at the box office.
Some of the most popular movies, some of the biggest grocers, some of the movies with the largest audience never show up.
They never get nominated in practically any category whatsoever.
So it appears that Hollywood has chosen the latter.
I don't, you know, this is a, these people are liberals.
You have to understand something.
And this is something that's always perplexed me about them.
And it perplexes me about the drive-by media.
They both are in that.
They have customers.
Drive-by media has customers, and Hollywood has customers.
If it weren't for the movie-going public, I don't know where all this would come from.
If it weren't for the movie-going public and DVD sales and all these other things, I don't know where all the money to pay Hollywood people would come from.
But they seem uninterested in that.
They want to preach and they want to instruct.
And this comes from basic liberalism, arrogance, and condescension.
They're better than everybody else.
They're elitists.
They are smarter than everybody else.
Same thing with the drive-by media.
It's the one business I know of where the customer is always wrong.
I mean, newspapers have these ombudsmen, where if you don't like something in the paper, you can write the ombudsman or call the ombudsman.
Ombudsman will then write a little column once a week of what he thinks was wrong in the paper, but nothing is ever going to change because of this.
Now, let me throw myself in this mix here since we're discussing this, because I have the same challenge.
And I've mentioned this to you people before.
When I moved to New York in 1988, I had a goal, and that was to become the most listened-to person on the radio.
And I figured there were ways of doing this, and that was connecting and relating to and respecting the audience, you.
Not looking down, not condescending, not assuming that you're a bunch of ignorant oafs and won't have the ability to understand what I do.
I eschewed public relations people.
We didn't go out and have all these giant campaigns that suggested this show was hot.
You made it hot.
The audience made this show what it is.
Your willingness to listen, you're admitting when asked that you listen to it.
And so this is the most listened-to radio talk show in the country.
We still don't have any PR people.
We're now there doing a lot of spin.
There's no buzz about this program being big, but there are a lot of radio shows that don't have anywhere near the size of this audience who do get a lot of spin, a lot of buzz, and they are portrayed as much bigger and having much more impact than they ever have had or will have.
Now, choosing between the two, I'd rather choose what I have.
I'd rather be a legitimate number one with no buzz and no spin rather than an artificial number one said to be big and important when it's not true.
Why would I want to live a lie?
Now, you translate this to the drive-by media.
They obviously are not interested in acquiring and holding a large audience.
They're interested in an agenda and pushing it.
And well, you might say their audience is liberals and that they serve that audience.
But at the same time, they compromise the sacred, so-called sacred principles of journalism in the process because obviously to anybody they choose sides, they have an agenda.
And there are favored people, and then there are others that never get a break from them.
And you know whom I'm talking about and what side of the political aisle they sit on.
In Hollywood, it's gotten to the point here where when they think their most artistic works and their really important things are rejected, don't do well at the box office, Hollywood rather than says, hmm, what do we have to do to change this?
What they do is say, well, you know, the audience doesn't get it, but we're about art, and we're going to continue to do the art that we want to do.
And our award show is going to be devoted to that.
And they'll go out and do movies that really do earn a lot of money.
They'll go out and earn the money necessary with the kind of movies people want to see.
But when it comes time to do their award show, those movies get ignored and the audience that attended them is ignored.
And so it becomes just a celebrity gab fest and a train wreck for the award show.
They're free to do what they want with this.
But, you know, whether they're out of touch or in touch, I don't think they care.
In fact, I think they prefer to be out of touch in the sense that they refuse to come down to the level of the average American for their art.
Let me explain the difference in this Mitt Romney business and the way Democrats are treated in this regard.
Ted Kennedy's father, we're not talking about a great-grandfather, a great-great-grandfather.
We're talking about father.
Ted Kennedy's father was a Third Reich sympathizer.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to pull him as ambassador to the court of St. James.
For those of you in Riolinda, that's Great Britain.
Had to pull him out of there because he was a sympathizer of the Third Reichs.
Now, we don't hold this against Teddy.
Teddy had nothing to do with that.
Just as we don't hold Mitt Romney's grandfather-great-grandfather against him, but the lib media that drive by are definitely trying to do that.
You know, you take a look at who the media really goes after, and you got to wonder there's fear there.
It's fear driving.
Why they just want to destroy every conservative they can.
That's just part and parcel of the agenda that exists.
Here's Sean in Woodbury, Connecticut.
Hi, Sean.
Welcome the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
I wanted to call because I visited my newly elected Democrat congressman, Chris Murphy, on Friday in a town hall meeting.
And it happened for about the first half hour of the meeting.
He sat there and berated this country, said it's our fault we have terrorism in the world.
We caused it.
President's incompetent.
The military can't win.
All those stuff you talk about all the time.
And I never ever imagined that liberals are this bad.
And I've always, you know, I've been a listener for a long time.
And I guess until you see it, you just can't believe it.
And one of the things he did mention, I know you've been talking about the cutting off funding.
He actually admitted that the Democrats are going to have a vote on cutting off funding.
Oh, I don't, I don't, well, he may think that.
I'll be curious to see if that really, really happened.
They'll only do it if they know they're going to lose it.
Unless, unless it looks like the surge is working, and unless there's real progress, they can't allow that to happen.
They cannot permit victory.
They own defeat.
They must secure defeat.
So he could be telling you the truth.
But I want to ask you something.
I'm really serious about this, Sean.
And don't take it personally.
I'm asking this for my own education.
How long have you listened to this broadcast?
I don't remember, but I used to watch you on TV when I was younger.
I'll be 30 this year, and I've been paying attention to, I would say I listen every day for probably a good five or six years.
Okay, five or six years.
The television show was 1992 to 1996.
So you've got a long history with this program, and you admit that over and throughout this long history, you have heard me eloquently, precisely describe liberals.
And yet that quite wasn't enough to get you to fully accept it, believe it or understand it.
You still had to see it in order to believe it.
You had to be exposed to it personally in order to believe it.
Why did you doubt me?
Rush, I didn't doubt you.
I think that it's just something so opposite of what my beliefs are that I don't know.
I mean, I certainly don't know.
And here's the point that I want to make.
You, like a lot of people in this audience, I say what I say about liberals, that they own defeat, that they want America to lose.
Most Americans do not want to think that there are other Americans who believe and desire such things.
So they'll think I might be exaggerating or that I'm wrong or that even if they like me, Rush is kind of off, going off his rocker again here today.
Because they just don't want to believe it.
Most Americans don't want to believe that there is a political party with a high number of members elected who actually want the worst for their country.
And until you see it like you did, you don't believe it because you don't want to believe it.
You don't think nobody could really dislike their country that much.
Nobody could really dislike.
I mean, these people hate George W. Bush.
They don't even know him.
How do you explain the vitriol, the personal hatred that these people have for Bush, not just elected Democrats, Hollywood types, so forth, who've never even met him?
There is an explanation for it, but you don't, even when you hear him say it, it just doesn't really register.
So I'm glad you got to hear this guy.
I'm glad that you had a way to personally validate what you've heard on this program because it underscores the fact of just how pervasively bad and extreme and dangerous that it is when people hear the truth but don't want to accept it because they just don't want to believe people like that really exist in the country and have positions of power.
Exactly right, right?
Exactly.
I'm still in shock.
It's three or four days later.
And I ended up, he opened the microphone.
I got up, said a few words, nothing that you'd be overly proud of, and then I just walked out and I had about 10 people and there were at least 300 people there.
About 10 people clapped for me and everyone else looked like they were ready to lynch me.
What do you mean I wouldn't be proud?
You got up in a lion's den and you took the guy on.
You may not think that you said anything as well as you could have said it, but you still got up and said it.
That's gold star behavior.
Well, I did say to him, I said that, you know, you guys are going to get us killed and we're going to fight this war whether you want to or not.
And next time it's going to be on the streets of New York.
I really bit my tongue.
I really wanted to say some really rude and profane things, but I felt that it was better on the high road.
Probably wise you didn't do that because you wanted to walk out of there with some credibility with what you said.
And if you'd have called a guy names or treated him the way he's describing Bush, everybody else, that crowd would have dismissed you.
So you did the right thing.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
I'm glad I made you proud, Rush.
You make me proud every day.
Well, thank you.
Then we're mutually proud, and that's progress.
I'm glad you called.
I appreciate that story.
Here's Becky in Salt Lake City.
Becky, how many husbands do you have?
I am so great.
And I just tell you, there's no one like you in the whole world.
There never will be.
When you're gone, it's never going to be the same.
That's true.
Nope, you're one in a zillion zillion.
Anyway, I love your show.
I've listened to you for 15 years.
Just business of polygamy.
Becky, before we go to that, how many husbands do you have or have had?
Had one.
One?
But I come from a family of solid Mormon pioneer stock.
All my ancestors came to this valley in the early, oh, mid-1800s, and every one of them were polygamous.
I mean, I probably have, well, so many great-grandfathers.
I mean, so many.
And so many of them.
You know, some of our ancestors scalped the Indians.
By the way, the Indians are a great example if you don't control the borders.
Look what happened.
Oh, that's the truth.
But everybody has ancestors that did things.
Oh, of course they do.
Ancestors that were rapists and hand-hand affairs and serpents.
I agree.
But, Rush, there's just one thing.
Polygamy is a no-no in every human's mind on earth.
And it really is.
It's a no-no.
I know.
And the idea of it.
And it isn't even the drive-by media who have the problem with it.
It's the whole world.
And unfortunately, you say Mormon with Mitt Romney.
And that goes the window.
Wait, It's not, it's not something universally opposed by everyone in the world.
I agree.
There are some societies, but let's face it, most of the people are going to be aware of the people.
That's a no-no.
Where do you find people that have more than one wife?
In a few places.
Where?
Name them.
Well, I know in Africa.
Africa?
Parts of Leonardo?
Parts of the Middle East.
Yes.
Oh, we know that.
I was going to come up with that one.
We don't want to call attention.
No, we don't.
But the point is that polygamy is a no-no in America.
No, no, no.
And it's always going to be a no-no.
And he won't win.
He's a good man.
I think there are other men as great as he is, but I don't think he could never win.
He won't win.
And I'm a Mormon.
Now, wait a second.
Why are you so certain that Mitt Romney can't win?
Because polygamy will that will be the banner in forever.
Do you really think that's going to stick?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I do.
And the polygamy, this Warren Jeff's business, they're just waiting.
The media is just waiting to break that all open.
The closer it comes.
If Mitt starts to show he's really going to be a front runner, you wait and see.
You wait and see.
I predict.
It's just going to be mayhem.
Well, I think it's already.
It always will be.
It always will be.
You know, it's like a person who's fat.
It doesn't matter what else you've done.
How marvelous.
You know, the first thing somebody will say if they want to, you know, make you look horrible, say, well, that person's fat.
That's the first thing they're going to say.
It doesn't matter anything else.
It's kind of like that.
It's like, no, polygamy is just there.
We're looked at as a cult.
So, you know, that's the number two thing.
We're looked at as a cult.
You know, we had angels.
We had Book of Mormon.
We had, you know, we had Joseph Smith.
He was told his name would be known for good and evil throughout the earth all the days of...
I'm not denying that it presents challenge because he was the first, but JFK was the first Catholic, and he overcame it with mistresses.
Well, including Misty.
He didn't overcome.
He wasn't from a polygamous.
No, no, but his father was a Nazi sympathizer.
I mean, for crowds.
No, I know.
I know, but that.
Oh, that doesn't matter.
That doesn't matter.
Polygamy does something to people.
Maybe it's in the genes.
Look, I understand what you're saying.
I think it can be overcome.
It depends on Mitt.
It depends on if he chooses to deal with it and how.
Look, I know the American people can be fickle.
And certain people can read this story and think that Mitt's got numbers of wives, too, because his grandfather did and his great-great-grandfather did.
But, you know, it's too early to write anybody off here.
I don't know if you support him.
You support him?
I have seen history.
I've seen people's reactions to me all my life, having coming from polygamy.
I see how people react.
I just think it's something that, yeah, I think Mitt's great.
He'd have to do something really amazing for the whole rank and file to actually back somebody who came from polygamy.
That's such an ugly word.
Becky, let me tell you something.
I want to share a little experience I had with you when I used to work for the baseball team, the Kansas City Royals.
My first job there was director of group sales.
And, you know, we had several large groups that attended baseball games every year.
It was my job to sell them and convince them and then coordinate the ticket sales with their group and their appearance that night at the ball game and pregame festivities.
And there was a Mormon night.
It wasn't called that.
It was Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints.
I met with the, and it was the Kent City, and I met with the group that put this thing together every year.
And I have to tell you, I was impressed with them.
They were just the fellowship between these people on that committee, the love they had for each other, it was heartwarming to be part of it.
I think this is, there's obviously, because this is new and this is the first time there are a lot of people going to try to make a whole big deal out of this, as this hit piece story indicates.
But it have to be icebreakers.
And people like first times.
That's what people liked about the last Super Bowl.
There were a lot of firsts in this Super Bowl.
Going to happen again.
It's impossible to have the first two black coaches in the Super Bowl ever again.
You may have two black coaches who are publicly witnessing confessing Christians, but it won't be the first anymore when this happens.
And people like firsts.
And this can be overcome in any number of ways, particularly if the hit pieces, if they keep coming and if they appear to be just grossly unfair and targeting somebody who doesn't seem to fit that profile and doesn't deserve it.
But a lot of it will be up to Mitt Romney himself and how he deals with it.
Look, I'm glad you call Becky a quick timeout.
We've got to take a break here at EIB Obscene Prophet Center.
We all have heard about polygamy.
The thing I always wondered about was how in the world could these guys afford it?
How do you afford 12 wives?
How do you afford all the gosh, that's, I know we're not just talking money.
I mean, there's a whole, how do you afford it?
Back in just a sec.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you, El Rushbow, here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Yeah, I know, polygamy.
I mean, how would you like to go home every night and have to have five discussions about your relationships?
Every night, folks.
I've never understood it.
But nevertheless, I want to tell you what I think this is really all about.
Even Dawn's chuckling because she knows.
I think all of this, this hit piece on Romney, and so look at polygamy still alive and well in parts of the Islamic world, Middle East.
Can't criticize that.
Of course, there's not one of them running for president yet.
And that's what sets this apart.
Why is that?
I think, you know, many of us have been trying to analyze for many years why this personal hatred of George W. Bush on the part of entertainers and others who don't even know him.
It's one thing to disagree with somebody's policies and so forth, but the personal hatred, it just is difficult to understand unless you understand the root of it.
And I think I do, and I think it has to do with faith.
I think they're scared of Bush.
I think so many people who don't believe in God have basically a guilt trip about that.
Not all, but some do.
And whenever they are confronted with someone who doesn't have such doubts, but has a firm belief in God, I think they're threatened immediately.
And if they then think that a person who has a firm belief in God is using any aspect of that faith as part of a foundation for governing the way a personal life is lived, I think it's threatening.
And I also, there are probably a lot of other psychological factors rooted in this because it's quite abnormal to personally hate somebody you don't know.
And yet there's quite a lot of it on the left.
And I think, as I've mentioned to you before, global warming is a religion.
It's not a scientific movement.
It's not a moral movement, as Gore wanted to point.
It's a pure religion.
And as I think Chesterton said, if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything.
And people who do believe in God and people who do have no problem publicly proclaiming their faith are a huge, huge threat, both psychologically and emotionally, to people who don't share that faith or have any faith at all other than in inanimate objects like elements of the earth or what have you.
But it's, I think with Romney, the fact that Mormonism is not understood by people.
It's considered to be a cult, a weirdo sect.
It's considered to be people who don't know about it to be very, very serious and devout.
And it's the devout aspect that just sends the left quivering and shaking.
Cannot have somebody who's going to be judgmental.
Can't have somebody who has absolutes of right and wrong and good or bad.
Can't have somebody that running the country.
No, no, no.
That's why the left feels like they are imprisoned when such people have positions of power.
Be back.
Quick timeout.
Don't vanish, folks.
Mexican trucks will be allowed to haul freight deeper into the United States under plans being hatched in Washington, D.C. That and a lot of other stuff that's going to tick you off coming right up.
▲
Export Selection