All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
March 9, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No white man, no white man can understand the experience a woman has to go through to move ahead.
I'll tell you who said this.
And in what context in mere moments, greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh program.
It's Friday.
Let's roll.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
A golden opportunity for those of you constantly whining and moaning about what's not talked about on this program.
If you think it needs to be talked about and you haven't heard it discussed, well, in showing leadership.
Paul in talk about it if you want.
Open line Friday.
We go to the phones.
And the program is yours.
Talk about whatever.
800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
Now, as you know, uh, well, you may not know if you weren't here yesterday.
The uh Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun wrote a story about the Breck girl, John Edwards and Kate Michelman, who used to run Nayroll, a big abortion group.
And uh she said, of all the guys out there, I mean, he's closest to understanding women in the headline of the story called Edwards Could He Be the First Female President.
So uh we decided we're gonna need a John Edwards update on this.
And we commissioned yesterday Paul Shankin, uh Paul Shanklin to go out and go out and do a a uh uh takeoff of Helen Reddy's I Am Woman sung by John Edwards, as portrayed vocally by Paul Shanklin.
We just got it.
I've not heard it yet.
I want to see here if it's any good to go on a rotation, so we're listening together on the EIB network.
I'm woman, hear me roll, and houses too big to ignore, and I know so much about how to pretend.
Yes, I've said it all before.
Like how I care about the poem.
Those are union thugs supporters, they're my friends.
Oh, yes, I'm cute.
Perfect hair and teeth and stay.
Yes, I'm a trial lawyer, so I'm never ashamed if I have to.
I can say anything.
I'm strong, but I'm sensitive.
I am woman I'm woman, watch me go.
My hair shines with the natural glow as I spread my loving arms across life, talking to those embryos in a courtroom long ago.
I'm sure I'll make you people understand oh, yes, I'm cute.
Perfect hair and teeth and stand.
Yes, I'm a trial lawyer, so I'm never ashamed.
If I have to, I can say anything.
I'm strong, strong, but I am sensitive.
I'm warm on I don't care what Ann Calda says, she's just jealous because my hair has natural bouts and body.
I'll be woman of the year this year.
I know it.
You know, these pantyhose eye drag.
*laughter*
Uh Paul Shanklin is John Edwards the Breck Girl.
And I am woman.
Okay, it's a keeper that shows up in the uh in the rotation for upcoming John Edwards updates.
There's uh there's a companion uh story to this uh New York Sun story we talked about yesterday.
Uh where does actually I think it might have been in the story and I missed it because it only printed the first page.
Uh C, the leader of a group that endorses and funds female candidates, supportive of abortion rights, Ellen Malcolm of Emily's list said that the Breck Girl sensitivity can only go so far.
Every once in a while we get in a primary race where a man says he's the best woman in the race.
I have never seen a candidate win with that argument yet.
It's just ridiculous.
Ellen Malcolm then said Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton has spent her entire life working on behalf of women and children.
She has a unique experience as a woman who has faced the obstacles in the way of women.
No white man can understand the experiences a woman has to go through to move ahead.
I think every man understands it.
He's got the tire treads on his back to prove it.
Only kidding, ladies.
Jim Taranto at OpinionJournal.com says, No white man?
Someone's going to have to explain that racist non sequitur to us.
Now while you're at it, try to make sense of Malcolm's claim that Mrs. Bill Clinton is unique for having faced the obstacles in the way of women.
Apparently she's the only woman ever to face the obstacles that are in the way of them all.
In any case, there's something odd and pathetic about this whole exercise.
Did Margaret Thatcher campaign on the claim that as a woman she had the unique understanding of the reality of women's lives?
Did Goldmay ear or endear a Gandhi?
Doubtless America will one day have a female president, but our guess is it'll be someone whose appeal transcends sex, who tries to win votes not from women for women, but from men and women.
So far, that would seem to exclude both Mrs. Clinton and the Breck girl, John Edwards.
It's just the more balkanization of our society.
No white man.
Do black men can black men understand it.
It's what it says here.
No white man can understand the experience a woman has to go through to move ahead.
What that's just a blow my nose.
What an appropriate time to have to do this, too.
It's an absurd statement.
I don't even really know what it means.
Except this woman obviously is out there thinking that she is a huge victim and that all women are victims and men can't understand victimization.
White sorry, white men, white men.
That's right.
White white men can't understand victims.
That has to be what it is.
There was an entry of the Washington Post blog yesterday by a guy named Dan Frumkin.
Uh F R O M K I And I missed this yesterday because I don't read the Washington Post blog.
I've I found this referenced on another blog out there.
This guy has a theory.
And his theory is that midway through the trial, Scooter Libby and his lawyers call Bush.
And they offered the following deal.
If you'll pardon me, if you'll pardon Libby, we will not we will not put uh Libby on the stand and uh will not call Cheney.
Now, this was on the blog.
It was not in the newspaper.
And let me just read this, because this this is insane.
One of the abite these guys are just, they just they want Cheney so bad they can't see straight.
And they're sitting out there lying through their teeth about how Cheney is under a cloud.
It's a new time cover.
They've actually got a dark cloud over a picture of Cheney.
Cheney's not going anywhere.
Cheney's not concerned about this.
This is just more of the alternative universe living a lie of the American left.
So they wanted Cheney.
They wanted Cheney so, so bad, and this case was not about Cheney.
I don't care what Fitzgerald said, it wasn't.
Now here's how this Dan Frumkin wrote about this yesterday.
One of the abiding mysteries of the Scooter Libby case has been why his defense so dramatically changed tactics in mid-trial.
Libby was found guilty on Monday of obstruction of justice and perjury.
In a pretrial hearing, Libby's defense team had indicated they would call Cheney as a witness, and that Libby himself would take the stand as well.
Testimony from either of them, but particularly from Cheney, could very well have opened up an enormous can of worms for the White House.
And the spectacle alone, that the vice president being cross-examined in a criminal case was something the administration wanted to devoutly avoid.
Then in his opening statement, Libby lawyer Ted Wells shocked pretty much everybody by promising jurors that he would show them evidence that his client felt scapegoated in favor of Carl Rove.
All of a sudden it appeared Libby had declared war against the White House.
It looked at that point like he'd thrown any idea of getting a presidential pardon to the wind.
But then on February 13th, after barely two days of defense testimony, Libby's team abruptly announced that neither Cheney nor Libby would take the stand.
What happened in between?
Why did Team Libby suddenly decide not to call such essential witnesses?
Why would Wells put forth such a dramatic narrative?
Libby is scapegoat without offering one word of testimony to back it up.
And what led some of the finest defense lawyers in the country to rest so quickly, having left the prosecution's meticulous case substantively unrefuted, wasn't meticulous at all.
A possible hint comes today.
In the 14th paragraph of Peter Baker's and Carol Lohnig's Washington Post story about the fevered speculation regarding the prospect of a Libby pardon.
Despite the defense's trial argument that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House, aides and advisors said there's no anger toward him in the West Wing.
Libby's defense team reached out to an intermediary after its opening statement to reassure the White House about its strategy.
Well, in what form did this reaching out take place?
Was it two-way?
Was Team Libby's threat to attack Roe of Call Cheney and potentially spill plenty of White House secrets, just a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation?
Was their decision to rest the case in any way related to any promises from the White House?
Could Libby have made some sort of deal with the White House to ensure presidential pardon?
Man, you talk about insanity and grasping at straws.
Literally throw it out there.
It's a blog, he can do it.
I'm just giving you an insight into the thinking of uh of journalists uh in the drive-by media.
Uh everybody and their uncle knows why in the opening statement, Ted Wells tried to distance Libby from the White House and a DC jury, Mr. Frumkin.
And everybody is afraid that a D.C. jury is going to be comprised of Bush haters.
And so Wells wanted to try to see if he could make the case, make it appear that that Libby had been targeted as a scapegoat.
Uh, in in a in an effort to get sympathy from the jury.
Turns out Libby did get sympathy from the jury, but not because of that, just because he's a nice guy.
They all appeared to like him personally from his eight hours of testimony that they heard and his demeanor in court.
Uh if I if you want to comment further on this, I think it might have been a little bit of an error for Ted Wells.
Uh as I had a note from a federal prosecutor made this point to me.
He said, Look, the this the big mistake here to cast Libby as a scapegoat, and to say the White House wanted him to be the fall guy because that gave the impression there was some sort of conspiracy going on in the White House when that's not what this case was ever, ever about.
It was just a defense tactic.
And it was not mentioned in the trial, just an opening and closing statements.
And one of the jurors, Ann Beddington was on TV a couple nights ago, said, eh, opening closing statements are not the trial.
It doesn't affect us.
That's not the evidence.
That's all we decide things on.
So um that that's this is the latest paranoia out there amongst the left.
Cheney.
And then Lib Libby made a deal halfway through the trial, got a pardon in exchange for not calling Cheney and not putting himself on the stand.
By the way, Valerie Plame will testify before a Henry Waxman Congressional Committee.
The tale's coming up.
All right, it's open line Friday, so let's go back to the phones to Aaron Chico, California.
Welcome, sir, to open line Friday.
Nice to have you with us.
Sir, thank you.
Megus here, Nevada, 82nd Airborne Ditto's rush.
Thank you.
Big bet.
Um I was calling because I'm just pretty incensed about this uh prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, for just the actions that he hasn't allowed uh Scooter Libby to provide expert uh experts to corroborate his own memory loss, but also others, not to mention just the fact of how memory works, not to allow it for his own defense.
And I can't understand how they let this juror who was writing a book stay on the jury.
Well when they didn't know that the juror was writing a book, and I the only I've talked to somebody in the know on this, and by the time this juror, this Dennis Collins got to him, they had used up all their strikes.
They had move on.org people in the jury pool.
They had all kinds of leftists.
This this guy was the uh by the time this guy came around, they knew he was a journalist, they knew he was a friend of Russert's or uh uh uh neighbor.
Uh had to work for Woodward, worked at the Washington Post, written books on a CIA and spying.
I mean, but there was nothing they could do.
Is that uh is that a uh an out for a possible appeal?
Are they gonna use that, do you know, or is that something that they can actually get?
Here's what I think they're gonna use on appeal.
Uh first they're gonna ask for a new trial.
That will be denied.
Because you ask the trial judge, and Reggie Walton's not going to say, yeah, I screwed up.
Let's do it again.
Yeah, of course not.
So the here's the grounds for the appeal.
The judge was in a state of personal pique when they didn't put Libby on the stand.
At the opening of the trial, Ted Welds said they were going to call Libby.
They decided not to call Libby.
It's none of the judge's business.
Uh the Fifth Amendment right, you don't have to take the stand when you're the defendant.
You don't have and it cannot be held against you.
This is the law.
Now, once you get in a jury room, of course, holdings in chain, but you it cannot be held against you, especially by the trial judge when you decide not to testify.
Because Libby didn't testify after his lawyers indicated that he would, uh they did not allow evidence or witnesses to contradict, not contradict, but to show that uh Tim Russert had memory lapses too.
One of the witnesses they wanted to bring forth had records that said to show that Russard had said three times on television, or they wanted to produce the video, actually, not an expert.
They wanted to produce video where Russert had said three times that uh he knew that you could not have a lawyer present during grand jury testimony when you are subpoenaed to go in there and and uh and ask be asked questions.
Uh but he had said in trial that he he uh he didn't know that you couldn't have a lawyer in there.
Now it's it's germane to nothing, but it would have it would have given the jurors more reason to doubt the credibility of Russert because it was his testimony that many feel was the uh straw that broke the camel's back, because Libby said that he had told Russert about Valerie Plain, or he had Russard had told him, one of the two, and Russett said, I never spoke to Libby about her.
And the jury believed Russert, so the defense wanted to bring in these video tapes to show that Russert doesn't remember saying certain things.
Uh that nobody does.
Everybody has faulty memories.
Uh Charles Crowdhammer wrote about this today and asked a good question.
All of you, I will repeat to you this question.
When was the first time you heard about Valerie Plame being in the CIA?
And who told you?
Where did you read it?
Where was the No, no, uh maybe it was me, but I mean just think stop and think.
This was what ever this is what this trial was about.
Libby was out there saying, gosh, I don't know.
I mean, it was this and that.
Uh that that's why the whole trial was bogus.
That will be the grounds for appeal, is that there were all kinds of uh uh bits of uh there were examples uh that uh all of these witnesses that were incriminating Libby had also demonstrated that they had infallible memories.
Uh and that was not allowed by the judge, so that will probably one of the areas of appeal uh that the uh Libby team will zero in on.
Well, I I just can't believe that this is actually a process crime that went as far.
I mean, I have a relative that just recently was elected as a uh the DA of a certain county here in California, which I won't say.
And uh I respect his professionalism and his respect of the law, and to see this prosecutor, a federal prosecutor act this way.
I mean, there's a book about this guy that people may not know about, about Patrick Fitzgerald, and it has to do with terrorism in this country.
Uh it's called Triple Cross.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard about it.
But it is quite eye-opening.
But I can't say for sure I haven't.
I might be called to testify since we're reaming Fitzgerald here.
Well, he was the biggest disconnector of the dots of leading up to 911 and many years back when he was a uh a special um.
Well, but wait a minute.
Now now Fitzgerald was on a legal team that successfully put a bunch of these terrorists behind bars back in the 90s, the the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman.
Well, when he did his uh testimony before the 911 Commission, and he talked about able danger, but he did not mention this one guy who pretty much infiltrated the CIA, the FBI, the JFK special warfare's unit.
He was a former Egyptian officer.
He was bin Laden's uh main trainer of bodyguards, and this is all documented and proved by this uh author.
His name's Peter Lance.
And it goes back for many, many, many years.
I now I must admit this is the first I'm hearing of this.
Uh the guy's name was Ali Muhammad.
Who?
And the the um the spy, his name was Ali Muhammad.
And he went by many other aliases, obviously.
He is I I encourage you to read this book, Rush.
If you want to be scared about this project, well, I'll find out, but I want to when we come back from the break.
Uh it's it it you wonder why he went forward with the case when you mentioned other prosecutors wouldn't.
I'll try to take a stab at it.
Stay with us.
I know.
We're back serving humanity, executing a sign host duties flawlessly because I assign them.
Therefore, being myself cannot possibly be a screw up.
800-282-288-2, if you want to be on the program.
Why why did Fitzgerald pursue the case when there was no case?
When the original charge was to find out who leaked this babe's name and he already knew that.
Why did he pursue?
Because he had in effect the powers of the attorney generalship.
He was granted blanket authority by James Comey, who was sitting in for Ashcroft, who had recused himself.
Uh I've heard it said that that many prosecutors would have looked at this and said there's nothing here.
And let it go.
But when you're special prosecutor appointed to get to the bottom of something in the federal government, it just it's just uh the benefit of the doubt here.
Just I look, I actually I can't explain it because there from the get-go, this was the pursuit of a process crime.
This was the pursuit of somebody in the administration.
This was not the pursuit of any journalists, even though Judith Miller spent some time in jail.
This was this was a concerted effort.
We have to rely on Patrick Fitzgerald's own words in his closing argument.
There's a cloud over Dick Cheney.
It's clear that's who he wanted.
Cheney Arov couldn't get there, and uh world scooter is there.
Now get this.
Valerie Plame will testify next week before lawmakers probing how the White House dealt with her identity.
Said the chairman of the panel is to be Henry Waxman.
Uh also invited to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is Patrick Fitzgerald.
Waxman said that Plame has accepted the invitation and Fitzgerald is not responded.
In a letter to the prosecutor, Waxman proposed a meeting with a ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia to discuss the terms of any testimony.
The hearing will be the first public forum at which Plame is agreed to answer questions.
I don't know why Fitzgerald would testify.
I uh I this this hearing is taking place specifically precisely because the Democrats didn't get what they wanted out of this, which was Cheney.
And they want Valerie Plame to come up there and continue the lie that she and her husband have been perpetuating that it was Cheney who set out to get them and ruin their lives.
When if anybody ruined her life, it was her idiotic husband for coming back and talking about all this in the New York Times and getting all of this started.
So two things.
If there is a Republican on this committee with any brains and any spine and any onions, it is time to nail Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and Waxman all at once with the contradictions and lies that are public from this couple already.
I'm probably dreaming about this because my guess is the Republicans are going to want this to go away as quickly as they can.
Let Waxman have his time, let Valerie Plame continue to lie.
But we know that Wilson's been totally discredited by a bipartisan Senate committee on intelligence.
We know that a number of reporters, despite championing their cause, uh have uh have facilitated uh the education that we've all had in the contradictions of Joe Wilson.
So the next thing is put her under oath.
What do you think the odds of that happening are?
Zilch Zero Nada.
The Democrats are not going to have her come up there and then be exposed for perjury herself.
So this is just get ready for this one.
Cameras will be there.
This will be like the Iran Contra hearings, folks.
It's going to be an absolute zoo.
Here is Tony in Mesa, Arizona.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, Megadethos from MEC, Arizona.
Yes, yeah.
I wanted to ask you about a problem with our antiquity or an antiquated copyright laws.
It seems if you show anything copyright material like episode of 24 on a TV larger than 55 inches to company, it may constitute a public performance and therefore breaks copyright law.
And I I just know you have a big screen TV.
I have a big screen TV.
The copyright law further goes on to say anything that has more than four speakers in one room constitutes a public performance and is a break of copyright law.
And the NFL was the one that brought this to my attention when they had their big what to do with the whole Super Bowl party of churches.
Yeah, but but but the there's a there's a reason for this.
And that is that these sports bars that have all these TV screens in there and showing the Super Bowl are paying for it.
They are paying.
Or they may be using young uh smaller screens, but it's just like let me tell you, if you have a restaurant and you play music in there, the first people you're gonna hear from are the BMI and ass cap gang.
And they're gonna want royalties for every bit of music.
You're using that to draw customers and make money, and the people are they own that that that property and they want their cut.
And the Super Bowl, the National Football League, they're not giving the product away.
Uh the the 54-inch thing is is I think just uh it's an arbitrary number maybe, but it's designed uh to uh uh keep uh people from from using big screens to attract large crowds uh and perhaps try to make money on the side uh in their in their own way.
What do you think is antiquated about that?
Well, I I don't think there's any problem with protecting one's rights from the material.
I just I just think with our technology with TV is getting bigger at home, it does seem to leave a loop for private citizens to get into legal troubles by you know just having parties and jobs.
No, that's not gonna happen.
Well, I didn't think it was gonna happen, but they seem to threaten that.
Well, where?
Where have you seen any evidence of that?
Well, I I just read an article over on uh TechDirt.com that said the NFL wants to remind you that having people over to watch the Super Bowl on a big screen is cost.
Wait, wait, wait, what dot com?
Tech dirt, T-C-H-D-I-R-T.
D-C-H-I-T-Tech direct tech dirt.com.
Yes, sir.
And they're alluding to the possibility if you have a big screen in your house.
Yeah.
And you're showing 24 or the Super Bowl and somebody learns about it and come shut you down.
Well, that that's what they're saying the law leaves uh loophole for.
It doesn't say it's gonna happen.
I don't know anyone who's been sued over this, but it it seems to be a possibility.
I don't see how.
The privacy of your own home is different than a public place.
Church a public place, sports bar's a public place.
Uh you know, you've you've got uh the Fourth Amendment uh protecting you against illegal surges and seizures unless Bush is tapping your phone and then of course all bets are off.
Uh uh.
But no, that's I mean, I I've I've got a giant screen in my place, and I have people over to watch the Super Bowl in the last round of the Masters and and uh M24, and I'm not worried about it.
I mean, we're not making any money off of it, and it's it's uh I'm not sending out a public invitation.
Sure.
Well, you talk about a lot on the air.
I thought if anything happens, it'll happen to you first.
Well, you know, this is interesting.
The the the the the fact this is just to go you show go to show you the th the the the natural inherent fear people have of government.
This is gonna you you actually have a genuine fear this could happen, right?
Well, not a genuine fear.
I mean, I I work at a church and I've been studying copyright law so that we don't break it, um, because we are public forum and we buy certain licenses through certain other organizations to make it.
Yeah, but you know what they're thinking.
Look at you know what they're thinking.
The church, the church wants to invite people in to watch Super Bowl, fine.
And the church isn't gonna pass the plate.
They're obviously but the church thinks that maybe the next time they do pass the plate, there'll be a little bit more in it because of appreciation.
You never know.
You you never know.
They uh you never know what they're thinking.
Speaking of this, you're you you want to talk about copyright and uh and all that.
Uh people who listen to this program on our on our daily podcasts, which uh are distributed about a half hour after the program is over each day.
Uh we do not put any of the commercials in the podcast uh because the advertisers are not buying that.
Sure.
And we don't put any music.
We don't put any parodies that use licensed music because there isn't well, there's permission to do it, but the cost is prohibitive.
And they just raised the rates.
The copyright tribunal, the the the broadcast people, the music people just announced the rates, and I want to tell you how this works.
It just happened either early this week or or late last, and everybody and it's it's gonna affect everybody that plays music on the internet.
Now we're already covered here the way we do the music with uh with BMI and ASCAP uh in with a broadcasting contract.
The internet is a whole new thing, and uh podcasts are delivered via internet.
Uh and i this is gonna affect everybody who plays licensed music in any form on the internet.
Here's the formula, and it and I don't have all of the years, but uh I ran the numbers for us.
Uh and and the uh uh I think it's I forget it's it's.
Four zeros of an eight, so eight thousandths of a cent for every time you play the tune times the number of people in your audience.
So if this were applied to us, we would have to pay something like just in in this year, next year it goes up and eventually gets to uh nineteen hundredths of a cent per audience member.
Every time we played a parody here or something, if if uh podcast audience was as large as as the radio audience will, and it's gonna be someday, would be about six thousand dollars.
Now you multi-might you might think, well, you're EIB, six grand is nothing.
Times how many times a day, times how many broadcasts a year, and then the rates go up, uh it adds up.
Uh and you know, I I think these people are actually shorting themselves.
They're gonna they're gonna see to it uh that fewer and fewer internet broadcasters or streamers are gonna use licensed product because that's that's just that's that's gonna that's gonna add up.
Now for small operators that don't have large audiences, they may be able to afford it.
But that's that what that's what we've been uh uh trying to negotiate with ever since we started our podcasts, and that's why they are music-free.
I mean, even bumper music, can't put bumper music on.
Any parody that that uses like we just played the John uh John uh John Edwards singing I am woman.
Can't we cannot put that on the podcast.
And so I you know, people listen to podcasts afternoon when they get it, are gonna hear me intro it.
They will not hear the song, and they're gonna hear me say, Man, that was funny as hell.
And they're gonna, well, why why not?
And they want to know why they can't hear it, and they send me emails.
That's why I'm explaining this.
Uh so there's all th this is not going away.
In fact, the the the intellectual proper intellectual property owners are getting even more vigilant about theft.
Uh because of things like YouTube and MySpace, all kinds of stuff going up there that is not the permission of the people posting it.
It's not and they don't own it.
Uh and these guys are they're gonna go, they're gonna go like banshees to gain gain control of it, because it is their property.
They are creating it, be it 24, be it uh uh any any other network show or or or what have you.
So, but I don't think they're gonna invade our homes.
Uh not not not for that.
Uh they may eventually invade our homes to see if we have any Bush paraphernalia in there, but beyond that, I'm not worried.
Hey, folks, before I get out of here for the weekend, I have to tell you I watched Amazing Grace last night.
Uh, don't know if you've heard about this.
It's uh it is really a uh a fine movie, and it's uh it it is a movie that is just it's unlike what stuff made in Hollywood today.
It's it's uh it's uh the whole family could watch this.
Uh it is uh properly refined.
It's it's just it's just it's clean and pure right down the middle, but it's got an amazing story.
It's uh it's about William Wilberforce.
William Wilberforce uh abolished slavery, abolished the slave trade in eighteenth century Great Britain.
Uh and it if there's a theme in this movie, and it it focuses on his time in the House of Commons, where his efforts to abolish the slave trade, by the way, 50 years prior to anybody else doing so.
Because it his efforts led to the abolition of slavery throughout the uh much of the much of the world.
Uh and he faced a number of pressures in the uh in the in the movie and in life.
He wanted to not go to the uh House of Commons, he didn't want to be elected.
He wanted to work on all of his humanitarian efforts outside, and he was persuaded by his friend William Pitt, William Pitt the Younger, the youngest prime minister in in British history, uh, to do it from inside the House of Commons, and he ran into all kinds of problems inside the House of Commons because he was he was, of course, there are people opposed to him, and he was urged to be bipartisan.
He he was urged, come on, come on, William, you gotta back off of this.
You understand a lot of people are making a lot of money off of this slave trade.
We you you've just got to learn to get along in here.
You gotta learn that there's only so much you can do, and he refused uh to even consider bipartisanship as a way of solving the problem of one man being able to own another.
And it really is uh it's it's it's a typically British movie.
Uh a couple friends of mine are listed as producers on a Patricia Heaton from everybody loves Raymond and her husband.
Uh Dave Dave uh don't come on well, it's not Dave Ross, I'm thinking of somebody else I know down in Miami.
Uh it's gonna shoot me.
He even had a role on 24.
He played uh he played McCarthy on 24 this year, who was uh running around securing the uh uh Dave Hunt.
Gosh, Dave Hunt.
He was securing the nuclear triggers for the bad guy, Fayed.
Uh great guy, Patricia and Dave or great guy, and Dave's even in the in the movie for a couple of uh cameos in uh in a bar scene.
But if you haven't seen this uh movie, and if it's if it's if you don't want something full of computer graphics and so forth, and if you want to take a message out of something, bipartisanship is not the way to deal with your principles is the is what this movie is all about.
You don't compromise your principles in the interest of bipartisanship to get anything done.
A William Wilberforce didn't.
Uh he was uh amazing character, and I'd never heard of him until I started seeing about this movie.
It's called Amazing Grace, and it's out now.
You got to hear Calypso Lewis from Nightline last night.
He was talking with uh reporter Martin Bashir, and Bashir said, Well, what about what about Mrs. Bill Clinton?
Not the young people.
Ms. Clinton is formidable, but Barack is even more.
Hillary Clinton was his husband.
Bill Clinton was described as as a black president.
What does that make her really not much?
Although black people looked at Bill Clinton as a black president, he did less for black people than other presidents.
We lost the safety net under his administration for welfare mothers.
We lost a lot.
They haven't forgiven Clinton for bending over, grabbing the ankles and assigning welfare reform.
Bashir said, okay, a black man, Barry Obama has announced that he's standing for president.
You support him?
I like him very much.
He has a fresh approach.
He's a beautiful young man.
If avoiding me would help him to become president, I'd be glad to stay in the background.
Because of the taint that's on the minister.
Has he reached out?
He has not made himself available to me.
Do you forbid black and white dating and marriage?
I would love to forbid it.
Because we're so far behind.
Our women don't have adequate men.
So I want the black man to marry the black woman.
I want the white woman to marry the white man.
Why?
Because that's the natural thing.
Calypso Lewis, he also admitted in this interview his uh he's I think he said prostate cancer or brain.
Is it prostate cancer?
Uh he says he's a changed man.
Uh, and he's not not the same guy that uh that he was.
Um says he's no longer anti-Semitic, and he's not anti-white, and he's not anti-American, he's not anti-gay.
All he is is pro-black.
Anyway, Bill Clinton didn't do anything for black, didn't do nearly as much as everybody thinks.
By the way, New Republic with Barack on the cover, and he doesn't look pretty in this caricature, which really emphasizes those old Dumbo uh or not uh what's the elephant's name?
Uh Dumbo?
The Dumbo ear.
Yeah.
All right, we'll be back.
Okay, that's it.
Another exciting week of busy broadcast excellence in the can.
It'll take the weekend, and we'll come back on Monday, all revved up, charged up, ready to go.
▲
Export Selection