All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 11, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
It was only mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen, that I shared with you what I had recently learned.
Paris Hilton had called in to Barbara Waller's show saying that the dumb act was going to end now.
It's time to grow up.
You're not going to start acting smart.
You're not going to act dumb anymore.
Then, a mere 30 minutes later, I see a graphic on the TV claiming that Paris Hilton says she feels like she's in a cage.
Well, she is in a cage.
It's called jail.
When I heard that she said she was going to end the dumb act, I said, well, that's cool, but how are we ever going to tell the difference?
And I submit to you that I was right about that.
I don't think it feels like she's in a cage.
She is in a cage.
She also said God's given her a new chance to make a difference.
Okay, the dumb act has not, maybe she's going to end a dumb act, but she obviously hasn't decided to end it yet.
And then she said she was shocked by the attention her case has received and suggested that public and the media focus, quote, on more important things like the men and women serving our country in Iraq.
Your initial reaction to that is, well, at least she knows that we're in Iraq.
And then you say, no, maybe not, because she probably didn't write this.
An image consultant wrote this, and his name, well, I don't know if he wrote it, but an image consultant named Michael Sands actually said this.
Paris Hilton will become a real Hollywood star from this experience.
If she handles it like a famous person and goes to a military base, visits Walter Reed, then Hollywood will embrace her.
Hollywood's very forgiving.
It's not like she insulted the Jews.
It's not like she insulted the Jews.
It's vacuous, folks.
I mean, it's just everybody that surrounds this story is vacuous.
Anyway, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rushland Ball, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Listen to this way this story starts out here from the Associated Press.
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half dozen states, and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations, pointing out flaws in the justice system, has weighed against capital punishment.
The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
But what gets little notice is a series of academic studies over the past six years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument.
The argument is whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.
The analyses say yes.
They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
Well, what did that study say?
Yes, I know you're asking me that, folks, and it's exactly, you heard right.
The scientists count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
The reports of horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists who vigorously questioned the data and its implications.
So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy because nobody knows about them.
A 2003 study, let's see, science does really draw a conclusion.
It did.
There is no question about it, said Nacy Mochan, economics professor, University of Colorado, Denver.
The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.
In 2003, he co-authored a study, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides.
The results are robust.
They don't really go away.
He said, I oppose the death penalty, but my results show that the death penalty deters.
What am I going to do?
Hide them?
You don't have to hide them, Macy.
The drive-by media will do that for you.
I've always thought it's a bogus argument anyway.
Whether it deters or not is not the point.
Capital punishment is a form of punishment.
The word is punishment.
Whether it deters or not, if it does, it's icing on the case.
You know, it does deter because that killer can't kill again.
I haven't read the whole story.
I don't know how they arrive at these numbers.
But this guy's a death penalty opponent.
He's out there making the case here that it does actually deter other bad guys from running out there killing people.
Economic news, drought, high fuel and feed prices, a surge in international sales and the cost of dairy operations are factors boosting milk prices to record levels and hitting consumers in the pocketbook.
In Alabama, the price for a gallon of milk has already broken a 2004 record, $3.57 a gallon.
Agriculture economists say it could hit $4.50 a gallon this summer.
That means, ladies and gentlemen, that milk now costs more than gasoline does when priced by the gallon.
Now, I wonder if there's too much profit here for Mrs. Clinton and Big Milk.
I wonder if Big Milk needs to keep its hands on its back pockets here because liberal politicians are going to come along and want to take their obscene profits.
Meanwhile, gasoline prices are going down.
Average price of gas has dropped more than seven cents in recent weeks.
This is the first time, actually, it's gone down since January, according to a national survey released on Sunday.
I predicted this.
Gas prices always go down in the summertime.
They always do.
You can make book on it.
One of the reasons, by the way, our refinery is only running right now at 86 or 89%.
I'm not sure which one of those two numbers is right.
Capacity.
We are importing gasoline because we don't have the refining, even 100%, we don't have the refining capacity to handle big demand to summertime driving and this sort.
And people are not cutting back on driving and their purchases of gasoline.
So the fact that we're importing gasoline, that's, you know, that makes me nervous.
Not immediately, but down the road.
We're Importing a lot of oil.
Now we start importing gasoline to meet our needs.
And it's all related to the fact everybody's out there talking about we need energy dependence.
And the very ways to go about getting it are opposed by the same people making the claim that we need it.
From the UK Times, the government's policy of promoting biofuels for transport will come under harsh attack this week from one of its senior science advisors, Roland Clift.
We'll tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced through plants is a scam.
Well, by the way, when you hear biofuel, think plants.
That's what it means.
He's going to tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
His comments will amount to a direct challenge to others who have published strategies promoting biofuels.
It coincides with a surge of anger among environmentalist wackos over the weak pledges on climate change that emerged from last week's G8 summit.
And boy, you know, you can talk about Bush all you want, but he stuck it to Putin and stuck it to the G8 on the Kyoto Protocol.
It's effectively dead.
He effectively just wiped it out, made them wipe it out.
Now, here's why biofuels will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions.
It takes too much land to plant the proper plants for biofuels.
In order to get the land, you have to burn down forests.
And when you burn forests, the carbon dioxide that these forests normally scrub from the air will remain.
This is, you know, according to environmental lore, will contribute to global warming.
That's all hocus-pocus as well.
Quick timeout.
I mean, CO2, we exhale it.
It's not a pollutant.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Get this story from the Charlotte Observer.
Bob Texera decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
So last fall, he's a musician, Bob Texeira.
He's a guitar instructor.
He spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil.
He bought soybean oil in five-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30% more than diesel would cost.
It saved the planet.
His reward from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels is a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes.
He's been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the feds.
To legally use vegetable oil, state officials told him he would have to first post a $2,500 bond.
The State Department of Revenue, which fined Texera, has asked legislators to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel users.
They also told Texera after the Charlotte Observer asked about his case this week that it will compromise on his fine.
Now, here's the pull quote of the story: Texira's story began near Lowe's Motors Speedway on May 14th.
I know you're wondering, how did they know he's using vegetable oil in the car?
Well, he went to Lowe's Motor Speedway on May 14th in a NASCAR race.
As recreational vehicles steamed in for race week, revenue investigators were investing and investigating and checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel.
The investigators spotted Texera's bumper sticker.
Said, powered by 100% vegetable oil.
Texira says that the revenue officials are just doing their jobs, and he thinks it's unfair that he was lumped with people who purposely try to avoid fuel taxes.
I can't win.
Follow all this liberal orthodoxy, go out there and put in this soybean oil in your car, and then they nab you for not paying taxes.
Your motor fuel tax.
I mean, it's not funny, but it is.
Betty, in Big Bear City, California, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
My pleasure.
Hey, I've got two comments.
One on what David from Sri Lanka had to say about.
All right, let's go back because, hang on, because he called about two hours ago, and so people may not have heard his call.
A few people might not have.
He was a peace activist.
He's proudly and self-identified himself as a peace activist and said that we shouldn't be complaining about the illegal immigration from Mexico because California is actually theirs, and we took it from them, and we didn't pay them, and it was like slavery.
And this is what Betty here is calling to respond to.
We had fun with David, and he asked me before he hung up if I would donate to the Sri Lanka Peace Foundation or something.
Yeah.
Which I've not done.
Well, you know what I'd like to know, since absolutely, well, almost 100% of us, unless you've got a dab of Indian in you, we're not indigenous to the United States.
So what are we supposed to do?
Well, I mean, even if we go back where we came, where our ancestors came from?
Even if our Indians may not be indigenous.
Well, this is true, too.
Some of them may not be either.
But we don't know who they took the country from.
Well, according to history, there was nothing here until Columbus discovered it.
It didn't exist.
It didn't exist.
I mean, you know what I'm trying to say in the form of a joke.
But that's the point is that nobody can make the claim to being indigenous anywhere.
Well, this is true.
So, you know, what do they want us to do?
Everybody go back to where we supposedly came from.
Spain would have to give back South America.
You know, it's ridiculous.
But the second point I wanted to make, Rush, was I really and truly think we need to close our borders and only let people come in if they want to immigrate illegally.
Well, yeah, that's exactly.
I don't know if he meant close the borders.
Just enforce the law.
Legal immigration is it.
Illegal immigration is going to be stamped down.
It's going to be fought and opposed, and the law is going to be enforced.
That's what everybody wants.
Well, it's what the country wants.
Elected officials do not.
Jim in Boston, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Yeah, Rush.
Listen, I'm not saying that President Bush is against immigration, but I think a lot of what he's doing is strategiery.
And what I mean by that is, look, he wants to be able to show he's trying to do the best he can for the Hispanics who he's always had a history with.
But at the same time, he knows that it's going to be overturned.
And also, it confounds the Democrats so they can't go against him because they can say, hey, well, the president, the lead Republicans are going in favor of it.
And it's just like in Dubai ports.
He knew it was going to go down, but this way he said he tried to do what he could for his family.
Wait, I'm following here.
What's the strategery?
The strategery is by the Democrats now cannot call the Republicans nativists for opposing the immigration because the president himself is opposing it.
And it basically confounds their strategy.
They are calling us nativists.
They're calling us.
They're calling us Yahoos.
They're calling us racists.
But, Rush, they can't do it effectively because basically it's confounded the Democrats because you've got President Bush himself pushing it.
But they can't, they still can because the president has split the party on this.
They can call us racists and Yahoos.
Rush, can I ask you a question?
Yeah.
Listen, President Bush may not be the most articulate, but he is intelligent and he doesn't have a tin ear.
He knows.
And basically, for him now, even in the teeth of all this opposition to say he's going to go back to Congress and try to push it, basically he's keeping the issue going and ultimately it's going to help the Republicans by keeping the issue alive.
Think about this after the fact, when this is all over with, what he's accomplished.
It's the same thing like with Harriet Myers.
He never would have gotten the Judge Alito in after.
That's almost a brilliant point, but it comes in.
That is a brilliant.
That comes up a little short.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, because for this to be analogous to Harriet Myers, the next time they come back with an immigration bill, it's got to be an elito immigration bill, meaning they've got to fix it.
And that's not going to happen.
The effort is going to be made to resurrect this bill in all of its fundamental parts that they want.
No, what it does is keep the issue alive pending the election.
In other words, this keeps the issue going, keeps it active, keeps people fired up, keeps the base moving.
That's why it's analogous totally.
You think that President Bush never would have gotten a Judge Alito in after Judge Roberts, a conservative male, had he not gone with Harriet Myers.
Oh, wait a second.
You're telling me that he's doing this on purpose.
Well, no.
And you're telling me that he nominated Harriet Myers on purpose, knowing full well we wouldn't accept it, and that was the only way he could get.
But I'm saying you're being too smart by half here.
That's not what's happening in this case.
It is not what happened with Harriet Myers.
Well, let me just say, I'm saying it's kind of like all of the above, because here's what I mean.
Rush has Hispanic sympathies.
He can show he's trying to do the best he can.
The same way with the Arab allies, that's not how presidents are judged.
I'm sorry to tell you this.
Legacies are born of achievements.
If this thing doesn't happen, his legacy is going to be he couldn't get his own party rallied around him to get this done.
He had Democrats willing to do it up until Harry Reid.
And, you know, that's an interesting thing to me, old Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry has been all over the ballpark on the subject of illegal immigration.
You can find quotes, depending on how far back in time you want to go, where Dingy Harry was, you know, all against illegal immigration.
And you find him moderating his tone a little bit.
Dingy Harry called for a vote when Bush was out of the country.
And he pulled the bill when Bush was out of the country.
Dingy Harry wants this thing to stay failed.
He wants it to go down the tubes.
He wanted it to because to him, in his political universe, presidential failure equals Democrat success.
I mean, he was saying last week, well, this is a Republican bill.
This is the president's bill.
Sure, we had some Democrats working on it and trying to help, but it's the president's bill.
The New York Times has one of the most incredible editorials.
I'll give you a couple excerpts from when we come back from the break.
But they're blaming Bush.
They're blaming Kyle.
They're blaming conservatives, talk radio, and so forth.
Dingy Harry pulled the bill.
That bill could still be up there.
It could be offering amendments to it and giving it a chance.
He pulled it.
He wants Bush to fail that because legacies are born of achievements, not effort.
Making the complex understandable, ladies and gentlemen.
That's one of the many services provided here by me, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, look, folks, I don't want you to get too smart by half out there.
There's no strategery here on the part of the president to help the Republican Party by sandbagging his own bill and seeing to it that it goes down to defeat.
They're way off the beaten path.
The only way that this helps the Republican Party is if the failure of this bill creates a vacuum that will then be filled by a conservative.
Because I'm going to, you know, there were stories that were written over the weekend.
No.
No, they couldn't.
It had to be written on Thursday.
Yeah, written on Thursday.
I forget.
It was a blog.
That's what it was, a blog from down there in Fort Lauderdale.
I think it was at Sun Sentinel.
Might have been Orlando Sun Center.
It could have been South Florida Sun.
Whatever.
This guy wrote in his blog, if the immigration bill passes, this will effectively be the end of talk radio and its influence.
Oh, yes, they'll still have the hosts and you'll still have the programs, but it'll mean they're ineffective and not worth listening to.
I'm paraphrasing this.
Ineffective, no power, not worth listening to.
Well, by the same token, this guy was of the opinion, obviously, that the bill was going to pass in the Senate and talk radio is going to go down the tubes.
Well, just the opposite has happened.
And, you know, Washington notes things.
Now, they still got a, you know, a bug up their rear end about this bill wanting to get this bill passed, but they know that there is a fortified opposition and they know that this opposition is largely indigenous to it.
It's not just because talk radio hosts are poisoning, quote unquote, your mind.
This is something, this is simple.
This is as easy for people to understand as that scam at the House Bank was when we learned that members of Congress can go in there and write checks for cash for money that was not in their account.
I mean, that's something nobody can do.
They were doing it for a long time and it was being covered up.
In this case, the rule of law is a fundamental American principle as it is a fundamental conservative principle.
And nobody here is making an effort to enforce it in a bill that was written in 1986.
This is easily understandable.
And we see the results of it because this is affecting people's lives, where they live.
People are being forced to move because they don't like the circumstances that result when you have an undereducated, low-skilled, doesn't speak English population that's largely infiltrating American cities and states.
So it doesn't take a massive education effort.
This is something people instinctively understand.
But the thing of this newspaper blog, the other side of that story is true too.
If, in fact, well, now that the bill is technically dead now, the president's going to try to revive it.
I guess they'll say it's on life support.
But those who want to diminish and pretend that talk radio has lost its touch, lost its power, has lost its connection with people, know full-fledged how wrong they are now.
And that cannot sit well either.
And mostly, the success in talk radio is conservative.
Is it not so?
The only way this bill going down the tubes can help the Republican Party is if it wakes up some Republicans and says, you know what, our heart is conservatism and get a candidate that can come here to fill the void and come up with an actual piece of legislation here that accomplishes what everybody knows needs to happen in order to solve a problem, not perpetuate it.
So There are lots of opportunities here, and not the least of which is that, you know, I told you last Thursday, McCain's been marginalized.
Oh, speaking of McCain, he's on the warpath out there.
He's blaming conservatives for the immigration bill's failure.
I think the Senate works in a way where relatively small numbers can block legislation, but I also think the more conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-legislation group were very well backed up by a vocal group of people who were supporting them.
Well, we know how to translate these words now.
So he's out there saying the opponents are anti-immigrant.
Nobody is anti-immigrant.
We're pro-immigration, legal.
I don't, we know all that.
We don't have to run through all of this.
But that's the only way that this bill going down the tube helps Republicans is if they get the message.
And there's no guarantee of that, by the way.
This is the kind of thing, you know, psychology is what it is.
This is the kind of thing you think, well, we're not going to be in a party run by a bunch of rebel rousing loudmouths out there, a bunch of yehoo nativist racists.
I'm not going to be a one.
And so they'll just get their backs up and they'll get more defensive about it rather than learn the lesson.
But it's, if they think, if anybody out there thinks that the power of the conservative movement in this country is gone in effect, in their dreams, folks, they are living with the reality today that that is not the case and it's not going to be the case anytime soon.
If anything, it's going to increase.
This is the kind of thing that will coalesce all kinds of people, maybe even across party lines.
If they continue to try to stuff this down everybody's throat, by the way, Dingy Harry, in trying to understand what he did last Thursday and pulling the bill, Rasmussen Reports has done a poll on his favorable and unfavorable.
His favorable rating has fallen to 19%.
This is from last Saturday.
Dingy Harry, now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters, unfavorably by 45%.
Just 3% have a very favorable opinion.
22% hold a very unfavorable opinion of Dingy Harry.
He's been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform.
The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress and among voters may have hurt public perceptions of Dingy Harry.
His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of him.
His highest ratings were 30% favorable in February, now down to 19%.
I don't think Dingy Harry's unfavorables have anything to do with pulling the immigration bill.
I think his unfavorables may be why, maybe a factor in why he pulled it, because he knows what people think about it out there.
And that's why he's out there today.
It's Bush's bill.
It's a Republican bill.
He's trying to distance himself from it because he knows that 76% of the American people are opposed to it.
And I keep referencing this New York Times editorial.
It is from Saturday.
A failure of leadership.
The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night.
Many of its hardline foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow.
They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they defined as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
Where do you start with that paragraph?
That is, that is just petulant and childish.
This is not even up to the standards of the New York Times when it was good.
Not even up to their recent standards when they've been pathetic.
This is just petulant, childish behavior, thwarting bipartisanship.
What's the magic in bipartisanship?
Reflexive loathing for amnesty, which is they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
Get right with the law means paying a debt to society, being punished for breaking a law, what have you, not clemency.
Hell, 12 to 20 million illegals are going to be pardoned.
We can't pardon Scooter Libby.
We can pardon 12 to 20 illegals.
Let's start calling it the pardon bill.
If they don't like amnesty, let's start calling it the pardon bill.
Because that's exactly what this is.
That's how you get right with the law is to be pardoned.
But anyway, it gets better.
But obstruction happened.
Republican amendments designed to shred the compromise happened.
Jeff Sessions wanted to deprive legalized immigrants, yes, legal residents, of the earned income tax credit, a path out of poverty for millions.
John Cornyn wanted to strip confidentiality protections for immigrants who apply for legal status, making them too frightened to leave the shadows.
And of course, they're also upset that there was the Dorgan Amendment.
They don't like Dorgan.
They don't mention him much in here, but they don't like the fact that Dorgan brought, well, Dingy Harry brought Dorgan's amendment back after it had been defeated once.
The Dorgan Amendment cut the five-year sunset on the guest-guest worker program.
But there's one other aspect to it.
They're upset.
The Times is upset over the effort to deport criminal illegals.
They didn't even want to deport them.
Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars, the one that would have put 12 million people on a path to illegal status.
It didn't show up.
Republicans who should have been holding their party in the deal together, President Bush, Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyle, failed utterly.
Which I read that's funny because I thought Dingy Harry was a leader in the Senate now, responsible for getting it through the Senate.
Now, all of a sudden, Dingy Harry pulls it with Bush out of town.
Bush is dealing with Kyoto and Putin.
Kyle and McConnell are now to be blamed for this.
Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars.
Restoring order will be wrenchingly difficult, but it must be done, says the Times.
The country cannot leave an unlawful, chaotic system to fester with legal immigration channels clogged, families split apart, boo-hoo.
Crop.
See, it's like we're doing this.
We are separating families.
We are causing crops to rot.
We are the ones who owe these people an apology.
We are the ones who are making victims out of them.
Crops rotting, state and local governments dreaming up ways to punish 12 million people whose identities are unknown to the authorities and who aren't leaving no matter what Congress does.
We cannot simply fortify a wall while continuing to extract cheap labor from cowering workers who risk death to get here.
Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country's future to pay for it.
Really, we're trying to preserve the country's heritage and future.
Something that the New York Times doesn't like as it currently exists and would love to tear it down or participate in the process to tear it down and rebuild it in their own childish, petulant socialist vision.
Back after this, they would.
Talent on Loan from God.
I am Rush Limboy.
You know, all these stories, and you can predict them.
All these stories, talk radio goes down.
Talk radio losing its info.
Why don't they ever tell the truth?
Ted Kennedy goes down.
Let me rephrase that.
Ted Kennedy.
Why do they ever write stories that Ted Kennedy can't get it done in the Senate?
Or that Dingy Harry can't get it done.
It's always in the context of, well, talk radio can't get it done.
And when we do get it done, it's because we're nativist Yahoos, racists, and all the rest of it.
Nancy in Wichita, thank you for calling.
Nice to have you on the program today.
Hi, Rush.
Hi, Rush, you sweet thing.
Pardon?
You sweet thing.
Oh, thank you so much.
I got my t-shirt in the mail from the Leukemia Lymphoma fundraiser on Friday, and I love it.
Well, I'm glad you got it.
I appreciate your donation to it, too.
If you're just tuning in, she obviously had to make a sizable donation in order to get the freebie t-shirt.
Did it fit?
I haven't tried it on yet.
I'm moving into a new house on the 1st of July, and I'm going to wear it the first night.
And I'm going to have a glass of wine and think of you.
I know.
You know, Nancy, I probably shouldn't say this, but I do sometimes at night.
I wonder how many people's thoughts include me.
I wonder.
Really, you shouldn't be surprised because there are many, many people that think of you.
Poor Dawn is shaking her head and she just can't believe it.
Are you listening to me?
Yes, I am.
Okay.
I'm listening to you.
I've been a husband.
You are well loved.
You're loved by many, and many pray for you.
Well, thank you so much.
And think of you every day, and I'm one of them.
Well, I appreciate it more than you know.
Okay.
And I thank you again for that donation to the Leukemia Lymphoma Society.
Well, stay well and stick around a long time.
We love you.
I have no intentions of vanishing or going anywhere.
Nancy, by the way, Nancy's in my top 10 favorite female names list.
Really?
Yes.
Well, then I'll keep it.
You own it, so you should.
All right.
Thank you, sweetheart.
Thank you, Nancy.
Always a pleasure.
Let's see.
What are we clock here?
Norma in Victorville, California.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime.
Anytime.
Anytime at all.
I just want to say that I think Feinstein owes the American people apology for calling us racist and having hatred in our hearts because we're opposed to the immigration bill.
I called her office after listening to you for a while this morning and told the lady that answered the phone that I felt that it was totally wrong for her to make such a comment.
And, you know, when she disagrees with somebody, is that considered hate speech?
You know, you've seen Teddy Kennedy say something.
Well, what did they say when you call the office?
Well, she said the girl that answered the phone said that most of the calls were all hate speech.
She said, you can't believe what I've listened to.
And I said, well, you know, maybe that's the only way that they have voicing their opinion is to scream and holler because otherwise we're not really heard.
Yeah, and especially on this one, there were more and more people thinking that they weren't being listened to or heard despite the overwhelming opposition to this.
But remember, she's not going to apologize because the purpose of this is to, down the road, be able to set other senators up to ignore future complaints.
That whole thing, that whole racism and hatred, rage, and people that called her office worst than she's ever heard in 15 years.
But I still want to see these emails.
I want to see, prove it.
You know, these people run out and make these kind of claims, and my reaction is prove it.
I want to see this stuff.
But the purpose of this, Norma, is to inoculate the other senators down the road when they revive this thing, if they do, because the criticism will start rolling in.
And they say, well, yeah, a lot of criticism, but just a lot of hate-filled racism.
We, of course, pay no attention to that here.
We're going to do what's right for America, what's right for the United States.
We're going to do what's right for the U.S. Congress.
We're going to do what's right for these poor 12 million illegals.
We're going to do what's right.
We can't listen to this hate-filled language.
In fact, we're not going to answer our phones.
That's how they're going to ignore all of your criticism is to discredit.
And by the way, welcome to the club because that's what they've been trying to do to conservatives in the media for I don't know how long.
Throw that racism charge around or some other characterization that's disparaging.
And it's designed to discredit people like me in your minds and hearts.
And so now they are so frustrated, they're trying to do the same thing to you.
So welcome to the club.
It's fun to be here.
Back in just a second.
And back to the phones, my adopted hometown, Sacramento.
This is Steve.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Regarding this argument over indigenous people and their locales and who owns what, we need to take it to the limit right back before the dispersion of all people at Babel, which is located 60 miles south of Baghdad.
Saddam Hussein was trying to rebuild the tower.
What a way to wrap it up.
Thanks a lot, Steve.
You guys have a great Monday.
▲
Export Selection