All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
April 18, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's time for some serious limbaugh, folks, and we're ready to provide it here on the EIB network and the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's one of those days it's gonna be tough to squeeze it all in here in three hours.
We got one of the greatest global warmings slash environmentalist wacko stacks to come down the pike.
We've got more on the Virginia Tech situation and of course the Supreme Court decision today on partial birth abortion, which uh is where I wish to start.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, and I know you do.
Email address rush at eIBNet.com.
Now, here's uh the way the AP reported the story about 1020 this morning.
The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the partial birth abortion ban that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
Now, let me I've I've been on the uh the phone this morning with some legal beagles who've read the decision 70 pages because I wanted to uh I wanted to be able to get this uh as correct as possible because the things are gonna happen here.
You're gonna have people on the right uh understandably celebratory, and you're gonna have the left.
I mean, the wording of that AP story is a veritable call to arms uh for the left uh to get in gear here, and the majority decision written by Anthony Kennedy, which I want you to be ready for this too, the drive-by media and the left are gonna start pummeling Anthony Kennedy because he made it clear in this decision that his mind can be changed.
So they're gonna start working on him.
They were gonna have the media talking about, whoa no, Bush has created this right-winging uh court here, this extremist right-wing court.
Keep in mind that Robert Snor Alito wrote this decision.
Anthony Kennedy did, and it was 5'4.
Here's the here's the as I've as I've talked to people, I've talked to a bunch of people on all sides of this today.
Um I'm gonna what I'm gonna offer you here are my conclusions and uh and my analysis.
There's no question it's a victory, but it's a narrow one.
It's an important victory, but it's a narrow one.
Uh uh both in terms of the 5-4 vote and the reasoning.
Now, here's what happened.
The court struck down a partial birth abortion ban that was passed by the state of Nebraska.
The majority opinion, which was written by Justice Kennedy, did not reverse itself on that decision.
Uh what what the um majority opinion said is that federal law, the federal law banning partial aborst partial birth abortion was consistent with the court's position in the earlier decision.
Now, what does this mean?
Well, to put it simply, it means that the federal law prohibits a doctor from knowingly performing a partial birth abortion that is not necessary to save the life of the mother.
Now, this is slightly different from the uh the so-called health exception in that the procedure can only be performed to save her life.
And this this is this is different uh from that.
Federal law now prohibits a doctor from knowingly performing a partial birth abortion that's not necessary to save the life of the of the mother.
Um it's not an overarching victory, and I'm I'm not trying to be negative here, uh, folks.
I mean, it's important, but it's not overarching.
It's not one of the it's not a landmark decision, and it is not sweeping.
It's uh it's a small victory, and uh, you know, hey, as the liberals would say about gun control, hey, if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?
So we can tear it around and use their own philosophy on them on this, but they're gonna go nuts.
The left is gonna go nuts here and describe this as the beginning of the end.
They're gonna fundraise off of this, they're gonna smear Justice Kennedy, making him pay a PR price uh for this decision, so that he doesn't dare do anything like this again.
And uh they're gonna try to kind try to try to cause all kinds of commotion.
They've got a dissenting opinion written by uh Ruth Bader Ginsburg that makes this out to be the end of the Republic.
This is just horrible.
The Constitution may have just been shredded here, and this is gonna gin them up.
This is this is gonna give them uh, you know, light of fire underneath them that they're gonna be out there fundraising and doing all kinds of things.
They're gonna start working on Anthony Kennedy, too.
Uh, because they think they think that uh uh he will succumb to uh uh PR pressure on this.
Now, there's an additional and important point in this decision.
Justice Kennedy, in the majority opinion, left the door open to all kinds of challenges on this.
He said that the challenge before the court in this case was a facial challenge, meaning it was simply a lawsuit challenging the federal statute's constitutionality.
And the court has rule five to four that the federal statute is constitutional.
Now, some people are not happy that this didn't go far enough, and when they when they learned what the decision was about, they were a little disappointed, even though happy at the same time because it it wasn't sweeping.
But Justice Scalia, uh, in a in a brilliant opinion on an abortion case, it must have been the uh must be the early 90s, said and and warned everybody that, and this is the way he wrote it, the mansion that is abortion rights law is gonna have to be dismantled, door jam by door jam.
Meaning if you look at abortion law as a giant house, we're not going to be able to take the wrecking crew in there and just level the house.
We're gonna have to take it apart piece by piece.
And uh this decision, I think would qualify under what his reasoning was back then.
Now, even though the court has ruled five to four that the federal statute was constitutional, if a case comes before the court, and it is uh shown perhaps that a doctor felt he had to perform a partial birth abortion outside the limits of the statute, then the court might hear that case, which uh leaves the door open to Kennedy to change his mind, perhaps siding with the four liberals on the court.
I'm just anticipating what could happen down the road.
Uh the bottom line here is the way this is decision the decision is written is that it is not uh etched in uh in in stone, meaning the door may not have been slammed shut on partial birth abortion.
There's still the exemption for the mother's health, and again, uh if uh if a case were to come before the court, and you know they would hear it, if a case were to come before the court, and in that case it is shown uh perhaps that a doctor felt he had to perform a partial birth abortion outside the limits of the statute.
And the court might hear the case.
They've said this in their in their opinion, which would leave the door open to Kennedy, perhaps siding with the four liberals on the court down the road, which you have to consider given we know what's gonna happen to him.
The Washington Post, New York Times are because remember now, Roberts Noralito nor Scalia nor Thomas wrote the opinion.
They they um uh concurred uh with their own little additions, but this uh this majority opinion authored by Kennedy, so he's going to be the uh the target.
We know these challenges are going to come.
Uh they'll be manufactured in order to get this decision reversed.
Now, speaking of Justice Thomas, Justice Calia, uh Justice Thomas added a short concurring opinion saying essentially that the court has been wrong about involving itself in these decisions from the beginning.
Uh and he said we need to throw out all these decisions.
There's no constitution constitutional basis for the role we are playing at.
That's my words.
I'm I'm I'm translating from the legal ease in Justice Thomas' opinion.
Well, this whole thing is crazy, because we have no role in this anyway.
We have we have no constitutional role.
We we shouldn't have been involving ourselves in these decisions from the start, and we need to throw out all these decisions.
Now that that would have been a sweeping opinion, but this case didn't provide uh for that kind of uh of sweeping opinion.
Um you're gonna you're gonna read a lot of things out there today, and you're gonna hear a lot of commentary, and you're gonna hear some people say, oh, big time, significant victory, sweeping victory.
Others are gonna say, uh narrow, so forth.
I think it is narrow, uh, but it's it's crucially important uh ruling.
Now, the left, and uh this is already begun, the left will declare this a sweeping loss.
There's they're not gonna call this narrow and they're gonna this is Armageddon.
This is the Constitution being shredded.
That's what they're going to say, and that doing that, they'll do that to keep their extremists hyped up.
And uh, in this case, and I would urge everybody not to fall for that, uh, because a contrary ruling could have been a disaster.
Striking down the federal law would have been a disaster from our point.
This is as far as these people are concerned.
When they lose an inch of the ten miles they have gained on this, this is a sweeping, sweeping disaster to them, and that's how they're going to play it.
But uh, you have to keep in mind that this is a narrow ruling that came from the Supreme Court today based on precedent.
This is not a fresh review of the constitutional issues of abortion.
That is not what this is.
And the door is left open for an what what they what they called as applied challenge.
And what that means is that Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion, is saying he's open uh to changing his mind, that he uh he's open to being persuaded that he's wrong in this.
So that there's there's nothing, there's no nail in the coffin here, pardon the uh analogy.
Uh there's no sweeping constitutional strike down here of uh of of the uh of the whole constitutional concept of Roe versus Wade.
And I I have to emphasize again, again, that neither uh Justice Roberts nor Alito wrote the decision, uh Justice Kennedy did.
Uh and so that's that's gonna lead, even though that's the case, you're gonna hear Bush has created this right-wing court, and we gotta do something about this.
That all that's happened so far is that Bush replaced one conservative with another and one moderate with a conservative, but still, without Kennedy's vote, there would be no majority here.
You can talk about this being a right-wing court all you want.
But if uh really what this adds up to is that Kennedy is the new Justice O'Connor that everybody's aiming for when it comes to the decisive 5-4 vote.
So this is not a conservative court yet.
Uh it and it it who knows the what the uh vacancy opportunities might be before Bush will uh leave office.
And if that happens, if there is a vacancy, if one of the justices retires before Bush loses uh leaves office this decision today, we're gonna be transported back to the 80s or the early 90s on the intensity of this.
And I guarantee you that the left will personally destroy the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will set out to destroy not just the character but the reputation of whatever conservative nominee that Bush puts forward.
Now, we don't know how many other um nominees out there of the caliber of Roberts in the sense that could withstand it.
There are some, obviously.
Uh targeting them, finding them and getting them nominated would be the next thing, but you need a vacancy for that.
So but and the Libs will know this.
Without Kennedy's vote, there would be no majority here, and so he's the guy that they're going to be aiming for.
So we'll keep a sharp eye on this.
I mean, there's going to be newspaper articles questioning what has happened to Justice Kennedy.
Uh Washington Post style section pieces on um has he been on the cocktail circuit enough?
Has he is he is he losing touch?
Uh has he maybe got too many conservative clerks worrying?
I mean, any number of things are uh are going to happen.
The liberals will pummel him in order to force him into line.
We'll take a brief time out here and come back with all the rest of today's program after this.
Now look, folks, I don't want to depress you out there of because I know some people, whoa, partial birth abortion vant.
It's a federal statute has been upheld.
Eric's still exemptions for it, but there are some bright sides in this, in addition to the fact it's a narrow victory.
I'm just trying to be realistic here.
This is an example.
Well, one thing that did happen here, the court applied the law instead of trying to make it up or impose an agenda from the bench.
Now the liberals on the bench did that, but uh Anthony Kennedy didn't join them.
They simply looked at the federal statute and they found it constitutional.
Uh they uh uh they they did not say they didn't consult foreign law, they didn't do all any other of the things that they're known for.
They just they just dealt with the issue before them.
But in the process of doing so, Justice Kennedy said, well, you know, if there are challenges to this, uh he opened the door for that, uh, we could be persuaded to change our minds.
Now, th those are my words, as uh as I as I read the opinion.
Uh and in the process, you could say, you know, a federal statute is put together by virtue of the elected representatives of the people, members of the Congress and the Senate, and the representatives of the people passed the partial birth abortion ban.
This is another thing that makes it important to know who wins elections and therefore who runs Congress.
So the the court, in upholding the uh the federal statute here, left the issue to be decided by the people through their elected representatives.
They allowed the Democrat process to work here.
All of these are positive signs.
Because you know that the court's proper role is to apply the law, not make it up for the bench and to leave policy issues to the people through the uh through the Democrat uh democratic process.
So uh a couple of other thoughts.
I mean, you can tell that the decision is a favorable by looking at all the right people who are howling about this.
Uh the uh uh you know, th there's a there's a silver lining uh in this to the abortionists, and you have to admit that.
Uh the i the court overtly upheld the the right to an abortion in striking down the absolute worst form of exercising it.
They made a point here saying this is not a w we haven't we're not touching Roe v.
Wade with it.
We're not ta talking about the constitutional uh issue.
We're dealing with one federal statute.
Now, this is this is this may be the way this problem's going to have to be dealt with, as Justice Scalia said, tear down the House of Abortion Law, the door jam by door jam.
You just continue to restrict it in uh in little ways that add up eventually, and in these ways that you're restricted, you err on the side of life until these abortions are actually very rare.
And we get we get news of medical breakthroughs continuously that are pushing the viability date back into fewer and fewer weeks in Utero.
Uh there's all, you know, we're all kinds of medical advances are taking place.
It used to be uh that uh before week X, there was no chance of a baby surviving outside the womb, but that that week X is continually moving back closer to the point of conception.
And that's going to keep happening uh as well.
Uh and of course, the way you look at this will depend upon which classical view you take to the problem.
If the original ruling, Roe v.
Wade is Pandora's box, then this is the way to go.
If if it's a Gordian knot, then you need to cut through it all with a ruling barring abortion, except in those very rare cases where the life of the mother is threatened, uh this sort of thing.
It it uh there's enough in this decision that both sides are gonna feel like they got screwed, the left more than us.
Uh some on the right are going to think, ah, it could have been more, but you have to understand this is you know, we were talking yesterday about the uh gun control inertia that was created after the Virginia Tech massacre.
You have to understand that when it comes to the abortion issue to the left, it's a political issue.
It's pure political power.
To those of us on the right, it's an issue of life.
It's an issue of morality.
That's not the slightest bit of concern to people on the left.
And it never has been.
Uh they may say the right to choose is a is a moral issue, but you know, you can knock that one out of the park with a fungo.
Well, we never can't tell a women uh what to do with their bodies.
Well, we do all the time.
They they can't transport drugs in their bodies.
There are laws against prostitution and uh and this sort of thing.
I'm just saying to them it's it's it's not a moral issue at all.
I mean, I'm talking about to the radical fringe leaders of this movement.
It has nothing to do about morality, right and wrong.
It's a pure political issue oriented toward power.
Uh and and to those of us on the right, of course, it is a um it's a moral issue.
It's a life issue.
And so that's why.
Where do we compromise on this?
Well, we know we got to get together and compromise.
Rush, we're gotta get rid of this this partisanship all over the place.
We've got to compromise on the war.
Okay, how do you compromise between uh victory and defeat?
Well, where's the compromise there?
Do we the people who want defeat, will they simply uh agree to postpone it for a couple of years?
Uh where's the where's the meeting of the minds on that?
Same thing here with uh with life and abortion.
Where do you compromise on life and death?
Uh I I don't know where the compromise is, and that's why it's a shame this has become a court issue anyway.
It's a shame that nine people wearing black robes in 1973 decided to usurp all kinds of Democrat power, democratic power from the American people, and and proclaim this.
You go to societies where the people have determined the Laws on abortion via their elected representatives, you don't find nearly as royal a society as ours is.
Uh because this this decision, uh Roe v.
Wade, was not something decided by the elected representatives of the people and therefore not decided in a democratic fashion.
Uh this was nine people pounding the gabble and saying this is the law, and this is what you have to do, and this is the way it's going to be.
And it's really never been settled in terms of the democratic constructs that we all live by, and uh that's what Justice Scalia was saying.
We don't have any business in any of this.
We don't have any business in any of this from Roe v.
Wade forward.
Uh but it is what it is, and so you deal with it as it is, uh and the this whole notion of compromise and can't we all get along on this.
I just don't see where that ground is.
I don't I don't know where the people who believe in life compromise with the people who uh don't think it's death.
Uh it's it's it seems to me this is something that's gonna be continually fought over until it ultimately is decided by the people.
Back in a sec.
That would be the golden EIB microphone.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network.
More details on this coming up in a moment, but everything you need to know for 2008 is encapsulated in this little blurb from ABC News The Note.
The Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel.
Every 2008 Democrat presidential candidate expected to address the convention over the next four days.
Can I give you a similar headline that would cause havoc?
The Reverend David Dukes.
Whatever whatever organization begins its annual convention at the Sheraton New York Hotel and every 2008 Republican presidential candidate expected to address.
Can you imagine the fur that would fly if if that happened?
But yet every Democrat's making tracks.
In fact, Obama under the radar has compared loose lips on the radio a la Donimus to the Virginia Tech shooting.
Yes, he has, ladies and I will get we got all this coming up.
We got I mean, it's it's it's more than I can possibly wade through all day.
I'm gonna do my best.
I may have to talk a little quicker than normal, which means you'll have to listen fast.
Let me go to Eric in Cleveland to get started on the phones.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
It's a great honor.
You bet.
I was just wondering with this uh latest decision if by osmosis or association the new justices are having some effect on the court after all.
Well, you know, the reason I took your call is because I uh know something about this.
And the uh the odds of that are rare.
The odds of any one justice influencing another in any way are very, very difficult.
I let me tell you what happens.
Uh after the oral arguments are made in any court case, any Supreme Court case, and the uh uh the briefs have been read and the clerks have made their recommendations, the justices assemble in their justices boardroom, and they vote.
And I once asked a uh Supreme Court justice whose name I will not identify is currently on the court.
I once asked him, Well, do you try to persuade the uh justices who disagree with you?
He said, No.
There's no persuasion that goes on in these things.
And I was stunned.
Because I thought you go in there as a lawyer, as a judge, and you believe in what you believe, and you try to twist arms and he said, No, no, no, no, we d doesn't happen.
I'm not gonna change their minds, he said.
He was incredulous.
I would ask the question.
I'm not gonna change their minds.
He said, he said some justices on the same side of the aisle will get together and talk about things.
Uh and so for the same side of the uh case, whatever the case is, but no, there's no not going to change their minds anyway.
So and I was I I was stunned.
There's there's no debate that goes on in these things.
They just they get together with themselves of the court, the clerks and so forth, and I mean there may be exceptions to this, but the general rule is they just submit their votes and that's it.
After that's all said and done, and then after the votes are tallied, the chief assigns who's gonna write the opinions on either side.
Uh and that's and that's that.
Now, if if you're saying by virtue of Justice Roberts' presence and in the daily Congeniality and collegiality that exists between justices of the court wandering through the halls of the building and this sort of thing.
I wouldn't put too much uh stock in that.
Uh when have you ever seen evidence of it, especially in the last four or five years or even longer?
When's the last time you had a case that was that was perfectly definable by a line that had left and right on it?
When's the last time you saw one of the wacko conservatives supposedly joining with the liberals on the court or vice versa?
When's the last time you saw one of the wacko liberals joined with the conservatives?
It very, very, very, very rare.
You know, and that's why Kennedy uh is now the focus of uh the big I just saw the MSNBC.
They announced the decision up there, and this giant picture of Anthony Kennedy filled a screen.
I'm telling you, he's gonna be the target now of the PR efforts mounted by the left and their house organs and the New York Times and the Washington Post, because this isn't Kennedy decision, it's not a Supreme Court decision.
The court aligned as uh as it was expected.
You got four libs, you got four conservatives, and you got the swing vote.
Uh and that that used to be Justice O'Connor.
Now Kennedy, in this case at least, has uh has uh has has joined the so-called conservatives on the court, but there's not a whole lot of persuading that is even attempted.
Uh I I think so many people, and I had it too, so many people have a misconception of what goes on inside the Supreme Court.
Uh you know, they they hold oral arguments, uh, but like oral arguments in almost every level of the judicial system.
They're irrelevant.
They're not well, I can't say they're irrelevant, but they don't have the impact uh that that people think they do.
Uh there just isn't that much uh persuading.
These these guys are all mental giants in their own minds and in their own right.
Uh and the the interaction between them uh when it comes to persuading each other.
Supreme Court's not a debating society.
Let me just put it that way.
That's uh that's not what it is.
It may have been at some point, but as it is uh and is currently constituted, it isn't.
Here's Barb in uh Fonda, Iowa.
Fonda, Iowa.
Who in the world would want to live in a place named Fonda Anything?
Oh, it's a beautiful I'm just kidding.
I'm sure it is, I'm sure it is.
I know it wasn't named after Jane.
It's been around a little longer than that.
Well, well, it's hard to say.
I hope not anyway.
Um hey, big fan of yours.
I I'm calling about the Virginia Tech shooting, and uh sorry, I'm really nervous, but um I guess that I know you don't want to compare this to 9-11.
Um but I remember flying commercial, um of course.
Not long, not less than a month after 9-11.
Yeah.
And the attitude in the airplane was nobody's gonna take over the plane.
Um we're gonna stop them no matter what.
It may be end up being a flight ninety-three, but there's no way that they will reach their goal.
And I think that's what the students, college students and the high school students have to take the same attitude.
The government is not gonna protect them.
It's not gonna save them, especially if it's one of their own.
And and definitely the institution won't be able to can't afford to keep them safe.
So I guess I intend to write a letter to my alma mater, encouraging the students to take a stand and um be brave about it.
Well, this this came up yesterday uh uh toward the uh end of the program before we joined the convocation uh ceremony uh yesterday afternoon, and we had a couple callers that where were the students where were the students running in and grabbing this guy after he ran through his first clip?
Where were where were they trying to stop this guy?
And uh I made the point.
Look, he's the only guy there with a loaded gun, and he's he's reloading these clips real fast.
Uh I I think a lot of people in that circumstance would panic.
This, you know, a school classroom, a dormitory is not the same as being on an airline plane now after 9-11.
I guarantee you, if somebody else were to try this at Virginia Tech, now that this has happened, there would be a different behavioral pattern by people uh if the circumstances were identical.
I think a student would get rushed, just like potential terrorists on airplanes do and will get rushed now.
Uh and and and uh you know try to be overwhelmed and this sort of thing.
But you had abject panic and fear.
Those two things are paralyzing.
But yeah, I I I was remiss yesterday in not passing on a story of heroism because there was someone who did behave in just the fashion you are describing.
And uh it was his name is Professor Livio Librescu.
He was seventy-six years old.
Uh uh he it was an act of heroism amid the horror.
He threw himself in front of the shooter when the shooter attempted to enter his classroom.
The Israeli mechanics and engineering lecturer, uh, that would be the professor, was shot to death, but all the students in his classroom lived because of him.
Several of his other students sent emails to his wife telling of how he had blocked the gunman's way and saved their lives.
Uh, this according to his son Joe, who said, uh, look, my father blocked the doorway with his body.
He asked the students to run the hell out of there.
This is all in the Jerusalem Post, by the way.
Uh, and his son Joe Labrescu uh said this in a telephone interview from his home outside Tel Aviv students started opening windows and jumping out.
Uh so there was an act of heroism.
Uh but but it's in in a circumstance like this, you know, we had calls yesterday from people.
Where's the toughness of America?
Well, we're all going soft way.
Where are these where are these people uh joining together and uh rushing this guy and overpowering him and de-arming him, disarming him in this?
I don't know, but when when it's the last thing you expect to happen.
Uh as it was why why didn't anybody ask this about the three or four planes on 9-11?
Why did anybody because they were they were stunned, they were in in in panic.
And even being on an airplane, even on 9-11, you had a little bit more awareness that there might be a hijacking, even though there hadn't been one in years.
Uh if it it it there still wasn't that uh same behavior by the passengers on 9-11 itself that there has been since, and that there will be on other college camp-eye should something like this uh happen again.
It's all about you know expectations, and if you have if if you go into a classroom now from from this day forward with just the vaguest thought in your mind that this could happen, when it does, if it were to happen, you want you're not just gonna be rendered completely paralyzed by virtue of of your fear and and shock, but there was this act of heroism, and I was remiss in uh in not pointing this out.
Since you've called about this, there's much still to say about the situation of Virginia Tech, and I'll get started with that after this.
Now, I'm gonna go to two sound bites here, one from Dick Durbin, the other from Barack Obama.
I warned everyone yesterday that this uh was what was coming.
First Senator Durbin on the Senate floor this morning.
Just yesterday.
Reports that a car and garage of an Illinois State Court judge on the north side of Chicago were damaged by gunshots.
The sad reality is that violence and threats against our judges are on the rise.
Between 1996 and 2005, the number of threats and inappropriate communications towards judges has gone up dramatically.
From 201 in 1996 to 943 in 2005.
Stop the tape.
Now I want to I want to ask you before you hear the rest of this bite, I want to ask you a question.
When it comes to people in our society talking about judges, who would you say maligns judges the more?
Would it be Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that you see televised?
They're trying to say these people are not qualified.
They are extremists, they are out of the American mainstream.
They'd go out and about their way to try to destroy their character and their reputation.
Who is it in this society that spends all this time ripping judges to shreds?
Now here's Durbin's theory.
There may be many reasons for this increased violence against judges.
But one of the most regrettable is a rise in criticism and condemnation of these fine men and women, uh, not only in the halls of Congress, but in some of the shock radio shows that go on and pass as news on some cable channels and radio stations.
Woohoo ho!
So now it's talk radio, and who do you think he means when he says talk radio?
Of course he means of course of course he means me when he's talking about happens on talk radio and cable news.
What what cable news channel you think he's talking about?
He's talking about Fox.
And so all the criticism of judges is occurring on talk radio and on shock radio and uh and this sort of thing.
So you've got the whole IMAS thing lurking over there as as something still sprouting uh branches from the for these guys to hang from and make these statements here's Obama and Obama, this is Monday in Milwaukee at a fundraiser.
Obviously, what happened today was the act of a madman at some level, and there are going to be a whole series of explanations or attempts to explain what happened.
There's also another kind of violence, though, that we're gonna have to think about.
It's not necessarily physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways.
Last week, the big news obviously had to do with IMAS.
And the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughter.
Verbal violence.
So you've got Durban and Obama.
Now, this is not unprecedented.
Remember the Clinton administration attempted to blame me for the uh blowing up of the Mura building in Oklahoma City.
And we called them on it, and they apologized and went out there.
McCurry said, No, no, no, we're talking about the uh the shortwave radio communications of the militia.
The Michigan militia or some such thing.
But make no mistake about it.
They take every opportunity.
So now all of these um all these acts of violence are being blamed on the shock.
This is I told you this IMAS thing was about far much more than him, and now you've got this Virginia Tech issue, which is used as a launch a pad, uh launching pad to go after the one area of media that is perhaps the home of more openness, more free speech, more diversity of speech and thought, but because there's the dominance of talk radio is uh conservative, it is a target.
And it is going to be dealt with as best these people can.
Now, I read a story on CNN today.
I don't need to read it to you.
But uh the story was typical, and it's something that I I predicted about the Virginia Tech shooting, and it really it amazes me.
All the talk about gun control.
Here we have people on the campus who said that this student was nuts.
They knew he was nuts, they reported him as nuts, they sent him to a mental institution for a while.
We don't know what happened there.
Uh his writings were nuts, and there were red flags sprouting up because of all of these things.
Shouldn't there be a way to deal with nuts on campus?
This was this guy clearly was disturbed, and a whole lot of people knew it.
Why wasn't there some way to deal with this guy before the fact?
Everybody thinks, well, get rid of the guns and we'll stop the okay corral from saying we don't have an okay corral going on in this country.
This is not something that happens every day or every month or every year, and that's why the reaction to it is extraordinary.
So we have all these people who had clear warning signs about the guy, but I don't know, political correctness or the unwillingness to judge somebody or what have you.
Nobody did anything about it.
The gun seller, the guy that sold a guy's guns didn't know he was nuts, but the people at the school did.
Everybody wants to focus on the gun seller and the gun, but uh the people of school knew that this guy was not right.
I'm not second guessing here.
I'm just res I'm just responding to the to the clutter of talk that's out there.
Now now we have in this guy's what we've learned about this guy.
We have a reported attempt to set a fire in the dorm.
We have sicko writings noticed by a professor.
He was recommended for counseling.
We don't think about that, uh, if he went or not.
Uh we have reports of him stalking female students.
But yet it's much easier to yell gun control, gun control, NRA is bad, Bush the GRP or GOP responsible.
It's much easier to just go out and say that than to deal with this kind of aberrant behavior on campus because of all the PC rules that are in place, both the formal and the informal PC rules.
Now, why not focus on that?
Why not focus on the clear and early warning signs that something was not right with this guy?
You read some of the things he wrote.
It's all about death and killing and dying and these sort of things.
The guy was just nuts, and a lot of people knew it.
Now, I I'm not saying this to lay any blame.
I'm just trying to point it out.
Uh, and they're gonna have an after-action review of this, they always do.
The governor's office is gonna do it, and I wonder if they'll include this aspect in their after-action review.
It looks to me like the people in charge here had plenty of early warning signs.
Not that he would slaughter 32 people, but that he was nuts.
Nobody's gonna ever be able to predict somebody's gonna murder 32 people.
That's that's even even with you just you're not gonna be able to predict that.
But you know, people don't just wake up one morning and decide to slaughter other people.
And that's the point, not gun control.
How could a guy like this get a gun?
Well, now we know how.
Nobody fingered the guy as a potential danger to the community.
That's why.
Anyway, out of time.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
I have a brilliant idea, ladies and gentlemen.
Earth-shaking idea.
Instead of banning guns, why don't we start a program to ban political correctness from college campaign?
▲
Export Selection