All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 22, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:16
February 22, 2008, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Time to start now, Brian.
Is that what you're telling me?
Okay, broadcast engineer says it's time to go.
It's Friday, folks.
Let's live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And it's been a doozy so far.
And we have an hour to go.
Open line Friday.
We go to the phones.
The program is all yours.
You can pretend to be your own host.
Look at me as the guest.
The telephone number 800 282-2882.
And the email address, a new email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Couple stories here on uh on Barack Obama.
We got I still have a fairly uh large audio soundbite roster.
We're up at number five, by the way, Mike, uh on the uh on the audio soundbites is a story today, political memo, Adam Nagurney at the New York Times.
I'm sorry, this is from uh from yesterday, and it's uh this prior to the debate last night, Clinton ads split on how to uh take over Obama.
They they they should have done what I have done.
I have hired Mr. Snerdley, given him an additional post, official Obama criticizer here at the uh EIB networks.
If the Clintons could have uh gone out and you know, incorporated uh who?
Uh John Lewis, uh Charlie Wrangell uh to criticize Obama and uh let Mrs. Clinton go ahead and promote herself in these debates.
Anyway, there's there's just a there's an interesting uh quote here, and and really Clinton aids split on how to take on Obama.
We've been talking about this all week.
Everybody's trying to find a reason why her campaign's tanking, and they're looking everywhere but at her.
And she is the problem.
The candidate is always the problem.
And the quote in this story about why so many voters are leaving Hillary for Obama.
Polls suggest that Democrats now view Mr. Obama as more electable than Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton.
There you go.
I mean, that's it in a nutshell.
This this is what's making these committed Hillary people, these women, uh both the smart ones and dumb ones, and whoever else that's leaving her, uh, go to the the the the magical mystery tour of Barack Obama.
And frankly, I think it's it's the the odd thing is it's the same reason that we have Senator McCain on our side.
It's the same reason the Democrats nominated John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam in 2004.
Electability.
Think we can win with this guy.
Uh you know, the the and I'll tell you something, the the endless 24-7 drive-by media coverage of this election has hypnotized just gobs and oodles of voters into thinking that there's nothing negative to report on McCain or Obama, because nothing negative has been reported.
Well, until today, yes.
Yesterday they reported something negative on uh on McCain.
But they've got everybody convinced that these two candidates are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, and there's nothing to criticize about them.
Uh, and therefore they're both electable.
Uh uh, the Democrats have better hope here because it looks like Obama's gonna get their nomination.
They better hope.
Hope.
They better hope that there's nothing negative worth knowing about Obama between now and November, because he he is basically still an unknown quantity.
Now leave it to the UK Times.
Times of London warning Obama is dangerous.
This is by Gerard Baker.
The Senator and his wife, as this week has shown our classic European-style left-wingers.
Now, I mentioned earlier in the program, talking about uh Obama that uh uh went through a whole list of sound bites to demonstrate to you that there's nothing new here about Obama.
Everything's being recycled.
It's all been said before.
It's either been said by Denzel Washington as Malcolm X in a Spike Lee movie, it's been said by Deval Patrick, it's been said by Bill Clinton, it's been said by Hillary Clinton, it's been said by Steve Israel, it's been said by a number of people.
Nothing is new whatsoever, except this.
There is a new idea in the Democrat Party, and that is America's finished.
America's over.
Uh, there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.
Now, this is something that uh has always been an undertow of the Democrat Party.
It's always more those rip currents.
Uh When you find yourself in it, just go with it, you know, you try to get out of it, you're gonna drown.
But now they're openly making it their theme.
Obama and his wife are basically out saying America's over.
They're doing okay and they did okay, but nobody's going to after this.
It's a mess.
We need new this and new that while they're offering old, old, old.
That's what makes this Gerard Baker piece in the Times of London so interesting.
Uh it was and he talks about Mrs. Obama and the point that first time in her life she's been proud to be an American.
It was instructive for two reasons.
First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign.
There's always been a second coming quality about Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that transcend all that America's achieved in its history can only add to that worry.
Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation America is.
Mrs. Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the last 25 years.
In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democrat Party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.
There is a cast, C A S T E, of left wing Americans who wish, essentially, and in all honesty, that their country was more like France.
They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it didn't have such a militaristic approach to foreign policy, above all that its national goals were dictated not by the half-wits who inhabit Godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the councils of the United Nations.
Though Mr. Obama's done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of him emphasizing his belief in American virtues...
His record in his program suggests he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.
And this, I think, not his inexperience in public office is the principal threat to Obama's campaign.
His increasingly desperate opponent, Hillary, keeps hammering away that his message is all talk and no substance.
And she was joined this week by McCain in that.
But if you listen to Obama's speeches, it's not the lack of substance, but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans.
His victory speech after his last primary win in Wisconsin was case in point, as we pointed out, it was very specific, uh particularly on economics, and it was frightening.
So this is this is uh Gerard Baker, essentially the same point with different words.
There is a new idea in the Democrat Party that has now become prominent, and the new idea in the Democrat Party is that America's a wretched place, it's horrible, and it needs to change.
That there's nothing exceptional about this country, and that the way it needs to change, we need to rid itself of so much capitalism, we need bigger government, more protective government, more interventionist government, we need higher taxes.
That's the change that they are talking about, which is no change at all.
This is what liberals have always thought.
What they have always wanted.
The real change.
I'm I'm not even trying to be facetious in the least.
Real change will be found in conservatism.
After all, who is it that wants to keep social security as it is, so it will bankrupt, or so it will force us to even higher taxes and bigger government.
Democrats.
Who is it that wants to reform it?
Have it make sense.
Give it some new life so that it's not gonna be the punitive stranglehold on the American worker that it's bound to become.
Conservatives want this.
Conservatives want all kinds of reforms in the things that are choking this country's growth and expansion.
That's the real change.
That's where it's really located.
This Is why those of us who are conservative have been retching at the notion that we have to become more like Democrats in order to win elections.
That we have to go ahead and acknowledge failed ideas and dumb policies in order to get the votes of people to believe in them, rather than, you know, tell these people.
I know you like this idea, this ethanol business, but it ain't working, and it's causing more damage and it's causing more harm, and it's raising prices on everything, and it's not the answer.
Well, it is for us, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's helping us tremendously here.
Well, yeah, I know, but that's a problem.
It's not helping everybody else.
It's causing a problem.
And of course, this leads to people, the Republicans have a death wish.
They're forgetting where their votes come from and they're willing to throw their voters overboard and public.
No, it's about the country.
Conservatism is about America and about each individual citizen.
It's not about a political party triumphing.
It's not about a political party pulling political strings in order to get a vote of this group and a vote from that group with this policy and that policy.
That's what liberal Democrats do.
They're the party that's made up of all these different constituency groups that have to be mollified and kept happy, from the unions to the feminists to the civil rights coalitions.
That's where the Republican Party is headed.
Get a few votes here, a few votes there, mollify the conservatives over there, tell them what they want to hear.
Blah, blah, blah.
But get those votes so that the country club blue blooders can end up back in power.
That's the way of Washington.
Conservatism is not the way of Washington.
Washington is the way of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and all who inhabit there, and it's incestuous.
If it's I don't care if it's a think tank, if it's the media, if it's all the bureaucracies that are housed there, Washington is its own little enclave, and you end up there too long, it'll poison you.
And you'll become part of it.
Uh and what it does and what happens in Washington will take precedence over all else.
Conservatism wants to de-emphasize all that.
Conservatism wants to reform all of that.
Conservatism hopes to get Washington out of people's way.
But many in our own party believe that Washington and its bigness is great if they are in charge of it.
And Washington and its bigness, no matter who's running it, it's never great.
Washington being streamlined by people who are running it has a much better chance.
Anyway, a uh timeout here will be back and continue.
Your phone calls coming up soon, too, as we wrap up the week on Open Line Friday sit time.
Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist showing how it is done for one and all.
And as usual, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair to San Mateo, California.
This is Eric.
It's great to have you here, sir.
By the way, Eric, do you know who's from San Mateo, California?
No, I don't.
And do you know and he graduated from uh Unipero Sarah Hascruel?
Could be Barry Bonds.
Uh well, yes, but it's not Barry Bonds I'm referring to.
Actually, Tom Brady graduated there, too.
But Bill Keller, the editor of the New York Times is from uh San Mateo.
I don't mean went and uh you uh Sarah High School.
Perhaps he took steroids.
Perhaps he needs them.
Hey, I've got an interesting um perspective.
I want your want your thoughts on it.
My first vote was for Reagan, and uh I've been a lifelong conservative, but in looking at this crop to vote for, I I certainly have a very difficult time voting for McCain, and I don't see that any one of them would ever be able to pull the troops out.
Um, just because I don't think that the the Democrats would ever have the Cajones to do it, because they don't want to hang that uh that millstone around their own neck.
Yeah, it's exactly my theory too.
And they've both they've all said this in debates at one time or another.
They have all said they could not pledge to have the troops out of there by uh 2013 when the first term was over.
Uh while I think that's true.
I'm uh uh don't think that they would pull out, and they certainly not gonna saddle themselves with defeat.
The situation in Iraq is such that if somebody wanted to claim victory right now, they couldn't pull them out.
No.
Uh but beyond that, you did you hear this this this whopper Obama told last night in the debate?
Which is that?
Grab the sound.
What was the soundbite on this, Mike?
Is this uh let me I want you to listen to this with me because I'm gonna have to just consult the audio soundbite roster here.
Uh it's number twelve.
Grab audio soundbite number twelve.
I want you to listen to this with me, Eric.
Are you ready up there?
All right, here it goes.
I've heard from an army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have thirty-nine men in a rifle platoon, ended up uh being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees.
They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander-in-chief.
Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment.
And you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now.
Who's gonna show the judgment to lead?
Did you hear that?
Well, I certainly didn't know that George Bush was personally handing out uh ammunition and making it.
Do you even believe that?
He was not asked for one bit of evidence to support it.
He was not asked to name the army captain.
No.
Now the problem with Obama when it comes to foreign policy goes way beyond Iraq, and that is this guy can't wait to work his messianic magic on the thugs and dictators of the world from Dinizad to Basher Assad to uh Putin to whoever's running the ChICOMs when uh when Obama would get there.
What's dangerous is Obama thinks his own country is the problem in the world.
Not these guys.
And he thinks that the power of his personality and his messianic second coming uh aura will be able to convince these guys that we mean them no harm, that we're really it's naive, it's childlike, it's junior high conflict resolution, and he wants to bring it to the oval orifice.
Well, my take on on him is that you know he talks a good game when he's by himself, and he's he's been, you know, in uh a leader from the point of view of one of many who's never had to make an individual decision, you know, and never had to be individually responsible.
So these guys always talk a big game when they're hiding in a group.
But when they're the leader, you know, the free world, all of a sudden everybody's looking at you and your decisions are for real.
And I think that he's highly pliable, both by his party but also by the American people when it comes to having to do what's needed to be done by the president, regardless of the president.
Very risky, very risky theory.
You don't know that.
You're just guessing.
Well, you know, I I am.
I mean, if we can't take people at their word, if we if we can't judge them on what I I went through this in 1992 with Clinton.
People were making up what they thought Clinton would do, despite the fact that Clinton couldn't tell the truth to save his life during the campaign, despite the fact he was lying about the economy, lying about pretty much everything.
Uh people wanted to look past that because they wanted him to be what they wanted him to be, and they thought he would be once he got to Washington.
But are you saying that any one of these three candidates somehow doesn't fall into that same umbrella?
Ugh.
Well uh yeah, I I I think uh Mrs. Clinton is probably a known quantity, and that uh suggests uh we don't vote for her.
Yeah.
Very much a known quantity.
Senator McCain sadly is also a known quantity, uh, especially the last eight years.
Now, the years prior to that, Senator McCain uh behaved in a totally different way ideologically and politically.
But after after he lost the presidential primary in 2000, I mean you go look, Ann Coulter did this, you know, they they boast about his uh eighty-two percent uh American conservative union rating, but uh it's it's in the low sixties or high fifties in the last eight years.
Well, my take on it is is that you know, you can call them a known quantity, but I think that the known quantity for all of them is that they're driven by their egos, not by principle.
Well, but at that everybody uh Yeah, okay, in these three guys' cases, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's bad too.
It is.
This is a this is a good one.
So that's bad, too.
I mean, you've got you've got yeah, it's uh one guy says it's my turn, two of them say it's my turn, and the other one's saying God's anointed me.
Well, let me ask you this.
And this is this is this is the strange coming from.
Okay.
Is it worth it to have Barack Obama be president in order to get the civil rights issue off the table once and forever.
That's a great question, because it won't get the civil rights issue off the table if I had some black voters tell me that earlier this week.
Don't think you're gonna be so lucky, Rush.
Our last caller asked a really good question.
If Obama gets elected president, wouldn't it be good to just get this done, Russia, and we can end the civil rights squabbles squabbles that we're having it wouldn't do that.
Folks, it wouldn't do that.
It might even exacerbate them.
Let me explain how.
It takes somebody like me who can read the stitches on the fastball.
Let us fast forward to January of 2009.
Obama has been inaugurated president.
And he proposes his first bit of legislation.
And let's say that it's, I don't know, with the...
Some civil rights oriented thing, and a bunch of people start howling.
That the race industry can't wait for this.
The rever any any criter, I don't care what any criticism of Obama, the first black president, is going to be met with charges of racism by the likes of the Reverend Jacks and Sharpton.
It will make their race business them all that much more prominent.
It will operate on the premise that half of this country is seething.
Can't believe this has happened, and they're gonna fix this somehow.
Cannot believe there's a black man in the white house and a black woman in the residence.
And this is that that'll be the theme that the race business operates on.
It'll be full of presumptuousness and projection, but it'll propel it.
We're not gonna be we aren't gonna get rid of the civil rights squabbles in this country in our lifetime, folks.
I don't care if Obama is elected president gonna happen until the di Democrat Party, and this isn't gonna happen either, until the Democrat Party decides to tell Jackson and Sharpton you're out.
Until the Democrat Party doesn't need ninety percent of the black vote in order to win the presidency, we're always gonna have a civil rights movement, and we're always gonna have the Democrat Party uh pandering.
Well, that'll be the first week, snurdly, yes.
He's talking about um uh remember when General Dinkins was elected mayor for life in New York City.
This is actually was it was it actually when he won the mayoralty or was his primaries when he went Yeah, I'll never forget this.
The New York all the tabloids.
In New York, I was there.
Dinkins wins, and the morning after the election, the newspapers were filled with stories such as the birds are chirping louder today.
The panhandlers are nicer.
The sun seems brighter.
I'm not kidding.
This and more was in the papers.
And then General Dinkins started being criticized.
And exactly what I said will happen with Obama started happening with General Dinkins.
In history, it will repeat itself.
So as long as the Democrat Party...
Thrives on the civil rights movement, which is made up of much more than just uh African American issues, by the way.
Then there will always be civil rights problems.
They manufacture them.
They invent them.
Don't you understand?
The Democrat Party exists to keep people mad.
The Democrat Party exists to keep this country in chaos.
That's the only way the Democrats think that they can profit is from chaos.
Don't forget it, folks.
A happy country is the worst thing could happen for the Democrats.
What's good for America is bad for them.
What's bad for America is good for them.
Look at how they're running.
They're running on a on a on a platform.
A stool that's got one leg.
America sucks.
America has failed.
America is over.
America is not exceptional.
America is the problem.
There's always been the blame America first faction in the Democrat Party.
It has now gotten close to securing the party's nomination for the presidency of the United States.
Who's next on this program?
Taylor in uh Naperville, Illinois.
Hi, Taylor.
Hi.
Um I was just calling announcement quite a while ago.
Um I'm done.
hold on, it took me a while to get a hold of you.
Um, but I was calling about the caller who called a while ago about the the political spectrum thing.
Yeah, I remember that.
Yeah, and he was saying how um it was a line and then you were saying, No, it's a circle.
Well, um I remember I was in college a while ago and I took a poly side class, and um you know I I've learned so much more since then, but they were teaching back then that it was a uh um it wasn't a line that was the political circle.
Um and that's what I was taught in college, but I since then I I think I've learned a lot more and I've you know being out in the real world world having a job and stuff, I don't think it's a circle anymore.
I think it's gone back to the uh the political circle line.
And it it you'll never end up in the same spot if you go far right and far left.
Uh far right and far left.
Well, I can see what you mean based on current circumstances.
Well, yeah, well no, it was because I remember um I was always taught ever since I was, you know, first introduced into World War II in the history class, um, that the Nazis were were right wing.
But it wasn't until recently I don't think they were right wing, they were left wing.
Because it was the National and Socialistic Party, and they were um Right.
But you know, here's the thing about these labels.
I d is the only thing that convinced you that the Nazis were not right wing was the fact that it had socialists and workers in the name of their party.
Oh no, no, no.
I mean that wasn't the only thing.
Um it was I mean, because it was more of I when I look at it, I look at it as you know, right wing versus left wing, it's big government versus small government.
Because everyone says if you go far enough right and you go far enough left, you end up in the exact same spot, which is um a dictatorship.
But if you use that line of thinking, then where do the anarchists work in into the political spectrum?
There's no room for them.
Uh I know it's a it's I'm I'm I'm not so w where do you where where do the anarchists in your diagram fit?
I would say they are extremely far to the right.
Because I look at it as more of a right and left is wait a minute.
Now get let me ask you questions about this.
How old are you?
Do you mind if I ask?
I'm twenty-three.
Twenty-three.
Yeah, and I've been listening to you since I was, I want to say like six or eight years.
I remember when you were on TV way back.
That's great.
That's I think no, I appreciate that.
So define anarchist for me as you mean it here.
Um well, I would say anarchist is in is in no form of you know, of government.
Um no rules.
Yeah.
I it's and I I would say libertarians.
Well, no, I'm not sure.
I'm just kidding, I couldn't help it.
I'm just I'm just kidding.
I don't get mad at me, libertarians.
They're already mad at me enough because I don't support your boy.
Uh uh But of course, anarchy is a temporary thing.
It never survives.
Anarchy is the result of protest, it's the result of dissent, and it's it's it's usually the result of what?
The breakdown of society?
No, it's the result of too much totalitarian control.
And if the anarchists have the ability to do something about it, such as if they're armed or something, then they will they'll just say, screw this to hell with you guys, and they'll go live their lives and they will do whatever they can to stop the totalitarians from impacting their lives, no matter what they have to do.
But then you know, there's there's it in no population of people, in no group of people, can you if it if you want to have a civilized group, society population, will anarchists be a viable political entity that are as competitive for people's thoughts and minds as are, say, conservatives and liberals.
Oh no, and and I agree.
I just I think that if you go far enough, so where they are, but but the point is where they are in the spectrum really doesn't matter because you're always gonna have liberals, you're always gonna have conservatives.
Sadly we're always gonna have communists.
Sadly we're always gonna have socialists, we're always gonna have totalitarians.
But anarchists uh they're they're they're they're f they want to change to something.
They want to change the status quo, but they don't want to live that way.
Yeah, no, and I I agree.
I just I don't think because everyone says if you go far enough right, I don't think you really can go um if you go far enough right, I don't think you're gonna end up in the circle of the uh if I understand you.
The circle the circle theory, uh rather than a straight line theory to to diagram ideological uh locations doesn't work because for it to work, both liberals and conservatives have to end up meeting somewhere in the circle, which is dictatorship.
Yeah.
And for people who believe, as we do, in less government and smaller government, your theory is it's impossible to get from that to dictatorship.
Exactly.
Um interesting theory.
I'm I'm sitting here, the uh little gray cells, the neurons are flashing rapidly here.
Uh I'm trying to think how a small government regime, if you will, could be taken to an extreme.
And yeah, you might be the only way this could happen would be if uh some mad general decided uh he didn't like what things were going and ran a coup.
But see, I think even them for him to, you know, come to the point where it's tot totalitarian.
I mean, he would have to, you know, initiate big to where he is now the head of the the state, and it it goes back to, you know, him taking the rights away from the government.
Yeah, but no, no, see what I'm thinking, even even in a small government regime, again, people who oppose it, uh like Bush, Bush Bush is being undermined and sabotaged by Clinton holdovers and career democrats and liberals, uh who have done their best for eight years to sabotage foreign policy, military policy, any number of things.
Um and even in, and I'm not saying Bush is a small, small, small, small government guy.
We're talking theoretically here, if we had one of those guys in there.
I mean, even Reagan was opposed internally uh by a lot of people who are trying to undermine him.
Uh I think going all over the water.
And a lot of people in government believe in it.
You know, the the Taylor, the thing is that all these bureaucrats who have gone to the Ivy League for one reason and that's to be trained into taking over government and making it yours for life.
You get some small government guy in there, he's going to be opposed internally like uh you can't understand, and if if he succeeds too much.
Now, your theory is right, because if the small government people will not be the ones to do it, by definition, the small government people will not become dictators.
But there are people oriented toward massive government control throughout our government today, who would revolt and do whatever they had to if they saw it slipping away from them.
It's an interesting, it really is uh interesting concept.
Uh but the Okay, and so let's stick with your straight line.
I got time for one more question here.
Stick to your straight line theory, which you think we have to revert to now.
You put the Nazis on the left.
Yes.
And I interrupted you when you said why, and I you said it wasn't because of the way they titled themselves.
Oh, uh well, yeah, I was um I was trying to look into um while I was in hold, do a little more research, because I know it was um I love the history channel.
I love watching documentaries and I love reading books.
Run run by liberals.
The history panel?
Uh run by liberals.
If it's on TV, it's run by liberals.
Oh, well, I still think they do some good stuff.
Um I I think they can be a little non nonbiased at certain times.
I admire your positive outlook.
I really do.
But no, well, and so I mean I try and watch a lot of documentaries and read books, and I remember it was um books are published by liberals.
No, no.
What about your books?
Uh you know what?
Taylor, hang on, I gotta take a break.
I'm gonna tell you a short little story.
I just I just learned this this past Wednesday.
Don't go away, folks.
We'll be right back.
And we're back.
We got Taylor from Naperville, Illinois on the uh on the phone.
Uh last Wednesday, a couple days ago, Taylor, I met with a guy who um I I've known but had never met him, and he came down here and uh just met him for the first time you know, shot the bull and so forth, and he told me something that a year or so ago,
I'm not sure the time frame and recall it, but he said that he wanted to do a book on me that he that he thought the country needed, that the accurate portrayal of of what this program has meant to media, what it's meant to the country, what its role has been, what its role is, and he prepared a very you know long presentation.
He took it to every major publisher in New York, including publishers that do conservative books, and was turned down flat by every one of them.
Now, I know they're conservative books out there and people publish them and so forth, and I don't know that if I ever did want to write a book and I would be turned down.
Uh but the but but they were not interested in his focus, which was going to portray me in a light other than how they view me.
And they didn't want to be part of it.
The point is, they've got their images.
They've they've got their little narratives, templates of who people are, and anything that might have credibilities come along and and will blow that up.
They're not going to be responsible for it getting out.
Taylor?
Yeah.
Yeah, no, I I was listening.
Okay.
I know you're probably mesmerized.
That happens when people listen to me, but I I just you you're watching a history channel.
It's great that you're watching this stuff because you're smart enough to figure out when they're fooling you.
Yeah.
Oh, well, yeah.
They did one where at the very end of it, it was all of a sudden Al Gore came on and started talking about global warming, and I was like, oh, they didn't do that.
Well, wait a minute.
What were you you're watching something on the Nazis?
Um well, no, I think it was a while ago.
They had um they did a whole day special on World War II where everything was on.
Special at World War II, and then Gore comes on with a global warming message.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
That wasn't the same.
It was another day.
Um, I was watching the history channel.
I just thought completely unrelated.
Well, you know, you uh uh a lot of these outfits, uh arts and entertainment, biography, A and E, Bravo, they're they're they're owned by uh uh conglomerates, networks, and so forth.
If it's look it, if it's big media in America, the odds are it's liberal.
That's all I'm telling you.
Yeah, no, and I I agree, but I mean I try and stay away from like the and let me did you now have you watched I got 30 seconds.
Have you watched a history channel thing on the Nazis?
Um yes, I've watched several.
Did they portray the Nazis as conservatives?
Um to a greater um say more so than they than they did as liberals.
Right.
Uh they will never portray the Nazis as liberals.
They're no, they will never portray uh Hitler's government, the Third Reich, as uh what happens at the at the extreme of liberalism.
But it's not that much different to what the Soviets did.
The Soviets killed people for different reasons, but the Nazis did too.
Soviets killed them to keep them in, and Nazis killed them to get rid of them.
I gotta run.
Be back right after this.
Don't go away.
Well, you guys on the phones today were excellent.
You were excellent, really, really good.
Can't wait till we do it again a week from today.
Meantime, have a uh wonderful weekend out there, folks.
▲
Export Selection