All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:22
June 12, 2008, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Rushland Baugh.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
The most listened to radio talk show in the country over 600 fabulously great radio stations making it possible for the American people to hear the truth.
Telephone number, if you'd like to join us, is 800-282-2882.
The email address is LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Page six.
New York Times, New York Post, page six, gossip column.
McCain's squad out talks Obama's.
If only John McCain could use surrogates instead of having to debate Barack Obama in person.
The other day in Toronto, McCain's team, his foreign policy advisor Niall Ferguson and conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, crushed the Obama squad, Samantha Power, who had to step down from his campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a monster, and Richard Holbrook, who was Bill Clinton's U.N. ambassador.
Before the debate, only 21% of the Toronto audience agreed with the motion that the world is a safer place with a Republican in the White House.
Two hours later, the mostly liberal anti-George Bush crowd had a profound change of heart.
43% ended up voting for the motion that the world is a safer place with a Republican in the White House.
Was it simply that Samantha Power was the weakest of the speakers on the stage, columnist Shanan Giovanni wondered?
Or did it point to a weakness in the Obama brand?
Power, a Pulitzer-winning Harvard professor, left shocked and visibly downbeat, Giovanni reports.
What happened?
She was heard saying as she left.
Wrong question from this typically left-wing journalist.
The question is not, was it simply that power was the weakest of the speakers?
Or did it point to a weakness in the Obama brand?
No, ladies, and what this points to is a weakness in liberalism.
Let me tell you, this is, I didn't even know this is going to happen, but Obama and Niall Ferguson apparently wiped out the Obama team in a debate on the whole concept of who keeps the country safer.
What this does underscores the point that it is not our ideas that are in trouble, it is our advocates.
We don't have anybody in the elected Republican leadership saying obviously what Krauthammer said and Niall Ferguson said.
They go in there to a den of liberals and they convince 100% or 50% of them to change their minds in two hours against the supposed brilliance of someone from Harvard.
And who can deny, ladies and gentlemen, the brilliance of Richard Holbrook?
What this means is that if you are inarticulate about our principles or if you are surrendering our principles, you are going to lose the debate.
If you are confident and articulate about our principles, you will win the debate.
McCain is less articulate, less coherent about this stuff than his own surrogates.
And that's the real frustrating thing.
Isn't it for all of you frustrating as well, just as it is for me?
We know our ideas have not gone south.
We know our ideas haven't been rejected.
We just don't have anybody that can articulate them.
We don't have anybody that wants to articulate them, apparently.
And even if we had somebody that wants to, I don't know who out there can in politics.
So that's the lesson here.
I mean, this is a confidence builder as far as I'm concerned, in the sense that in the arena of ideas, you get somebody who knows what we believe and can articulate it with passion and with confidence and optimism, slam dunk.
Liberals want no part of these kinds of debates either in Congress or anywhere else.
And in fact, I mentioned moments ago the idea that the Democrats want to shut down the military from doing any press conferences on the basis that it is propaganda.
The reason they want to shut the military down, the reason they don't want to allow propaganda or press conference by the military, is simply because they don't want the truth out.
They have the lies of the Iraq War and the war on terror under control from both themselves and their buddies in the drive-by media.
Now, Patrick Casey, the American thinker, wrote about this, and he said, in the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people, the Democrats work hard to silence information that undermines their agenda, and they are winning.
While the military fights for victory, Democrats plot their defeat not on the battlefield, but in the minds of the very citizens they serve.
In this, they diminish us as a nation and inch us ever closer to defeat.
The political fight for America's access to the truth, whatever the source, is one battle the military cannot fight for us.
They have to remain apolitical.
This is a fight.
We, the people, must win for them.
It's absolutely true.
We're the ones that have to sing their praises.
We're the ones that have to tell the truth about them.
The Democrats do not want to allow them to have press conferences.
Especially, yeah, since that's good points, since we are winning in Iraq, now is this.
That's no coincidence, by the way, that Pelosi has come up with the idea to ban Democrat or Pentagon press conferences.
Because here we are in the middle of winning, and they can't afford, I mean, their whole, as I told you, their whole future is invested in the concept of defeat, that we've already lost, that we cannot win.
Worst thing can happen to these people is if word gets out that we are.
Now, they can trust their buddies in the drive-by media, and they can trust the people that they control in the House and the Senate, but they can't trust the military.
So shut them up.
Same thing with talk radio.
And here we have this example in Toronto of this debate with the proposition being Republicans keep the country safer.
An audience of libs, and they go from 21 to 43% accepting the proposal.
Get people that can say what we believe, can articulate it, and we'll win most of the time.
And that's really what is so frustrating.
Anheuser-Busch is the target of a takeover bid by a Belgian brewer by the name of InBEV.
InBEV offering $46 billion for Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis.
That's $65 a share for the company.
St. Louis, Anheuser-Busch closed at $58.35 yesterday.
Politicians and activists are already lining up against the deal, saying it could cost jobs in the U.S. and send ownership of an iconic American company overseas.
With economic concerns at the front of voters' minds, the opposition could cause a headache for InBev.
The Republican governor of Missouri Matt Blunt said yesterday he opposes the deal.
He directed the Missouri Department of Economic Development to see if there was a way to stop it.
He said, I'm strongly opposed to the sale of Anheuser-Busch, and today's offer to purchase this company is deeply troubling to me.
Websites have sprung up opposing the deal on patriotic grounds, arguing that such an iconic U.S. firm should not be handed over to foreign ownership.
One of the sites called saveab.com was launched by Blunt's former chief of staff, Ed Martin.
Ed Martin said that shareholders should resist choosing dollars over American jobs.
Selling out to the Belgians is not worth it because this is about more than beer.
It's about our jobs.
It's about our nation.
My friends, there's another consideration here.
What will happen to McCain's beer distributorship if a Belgian firm buys Anheuser-Busch?
We need beer security here.
And if this happens, we're just going to have to start drilling for more beer.
I mean, we're going to become dependent on foreign beer.
I'm not a big beer consumer.
I don't drink much.
You drink beer, Brian?
Yeah, we'll see.
Look, think of the price shocks.
You're going to have a cartel here, a Belgian cartel in charge of beer prices.
Well, we're halfway joking through here, but if InBEV offers the $46 billion, and if the shareholders at Anheuser-Busch, if the board turns it down, then they can always go hostile.
I mean, there's nothing to stop them from just walking in there and trying to buy as much stock as they can.
So they've got to turn this into a PR battle that the InBEV gang doesn't want to deal with because they'll not want to deal with a hostile American beer purchasing public after they.
Well, now come on.
Snerdley's saying, why is this any different than any other such deal?
Why is this?
I'll tell you what I would rather do.
I'd rather give them a building.
Just give InBEV a building in New York City rather than an Anheuser-Busch.
It is iconic.
The Clydesdales, Grants, Farm, all of that.
But it isn't any different, Snerdley.
I mean, Abu Dhabi buying the Chrysler building in New York.
Let's see.
I mean, the Japanese bought up the Rockefeller Trust.
And then back then in the 80s, and back then, everybody, oh, no, oh, no, we're all going to be wearing kimonos to work before it's all over.
None of that transpired, and none of it happened.
But look, if you are, here's the way this stuff works, folks.
I hate to tell you, if you're on the board of directors at Anheuser-Busch, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders.
Your stock closes at $58 and change on Wednesday, and somebody comes and offers you $65 for it the next day.
You know, it's a tough thing.
And this is only the original offer.
There's nothing to stop InBev from going higher.
I understand the emotional aspects of this.
Anheuser-Busch, Ed Martin is right, is an iconic American company.
No more iconic company can you find than Anheuser-Busch.
And people are going to say, can't we hold on to what's ours?
Can't we hold on to what's ours?
Why do we have not bud, please, anything but bud?
Well, Ryan, you know, Brian, there is a reason that you are an engineer.
He's whispering in my IFB, what's the big deal, Russia?
You can always drink Miller Light or Coors or Coors Light.
What's to stop InBev from buying them down the road, Brian?
Where are you going to draw the line?
What if they come along and want to buy Coca-Cola?
At any rate, look, we're a little long here.
We got to take a brief time out, folks.
Sit tight more straight ahead on the EIB network right after this.
Apparently, Senator McCain has spoken out, ladies and gentlemen, on the Supreme Court decision today that allows inmates at Guantanamo Bay to seek hearings on their detention in U.S. federal court, being granted rights equivalent to those of United States citizens.
McCain said it obviously concerns me these are unlawful combatants.
What is an unlawful combatant?
Well, start again.
It obviously concerns me.
These are unlawful combatants.
They are not American citizens.
I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion in this decision.
It's a decision the Supreme Court made.
We have to move forward.
I've always favored a closing of Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that.
Well, that's cool.
That's decisive.
That's definitive.
Back to the phones, I think.
Bill and LeClaire, Iowa, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call today.
Yes, sir.
Hey, just real quick: if enemy combatants have access to the U.S.
No, no, no.
They're called unlawful combatants.
Oh, I don't know.
Senator McCain called them unlawful combatants.
I don't know what one of those is either, but that's what he called them.
Well, if they have access to the U.S. court system, now, shouldn't U.S. soldiers also have the same access to those court systems?
Well, what worries me is: here's what's going to happen with this: all of these detainees, or 270 of them, are going to get hearings before a U.S. district judge, and they are going to be able to make the case that they are not enemy combatants.
They're lawyers.
They're going to lawyer up, and they're going to have plenty of ACLU-type lawyers defending them in the sense that they're not enemy combatants.
And then the judge decides.
And if the judge says, you know what, we think you're right, Sahib, you're not an enemy combatant.
Then he has to be released.
And the U.S. government's got to release the guy.
I mean, that's what happens here.
But doesn't this turn over a part of the military code of justice?
This is what the Supreme Court has just said that all these military tribunal things are unconstitutional, that they can't do that.
These people, this is what's breathtaking, groundbreaking, whatever about this.
These are prisoners of war.
They have constitutional rights to have the charges against the quote-unquote charges against them heard in a U.S. courtroom.
These are people captured on the battlefield.
You ask about the U.S. military.
My question is: are we going to have to track down the people that captured each individual citizen or sorry, enemy combatant, and then go through in terms of testimony, the process that led to the capture and transporting them to Guantanamo?
And at some point, are we going to say these people, enemy combatants, soldiers, whether they wear uniforms or not, representing the enemy, have to be given Miranda rights?
Where does this go?
I mean, if we're talking U.S. constitutional rights, we're talking Miranda, aren't we?
Well, absolutely.
And I guess I don't understand why the Supreme Court wouldn't have understood this.
Doesn't this give the U.S. courts then understood it perfectly.
The five justices on this court understood perfectly what they were doing.
They didn't make a mistake.
Well, doesn't this give the federal courts still the ability to rule whether or not their capture was under excessive force?
Not only that, it gives the federal court the decision to determine whether or not they're actually the enemy.
Well, that too, but they can also say that, well, the the systems that they use to capture us, the weapons they use to capture us, were excessive force.
We presume.
Well, that's who knows where this is going to go.
You know, excessive force.
Was the soldier mean?
Did the soldier deny civil rights to the enemy combatant?
You know, I mean, if you're going to grant these people constitutional rights, at what point do you say, okay, those are all the constitutional rights you get?
If we're going to grant them constitutional rights, habeas corpus, to go to a courtroom and make the case that they're not the enemy, and a judge gets to decide this, then what's happened here, and when you say doesn't the Supreme Court understand, the leftists, not just on the Supreme Court, the leftists throughout the American judiciary want to take the right to prosecute war away from the commander-in-chief and turn it over to themselves.
I just see that this is going to have so many unintended consequences.
No, it has many intended consequences.
This is what many of us who ring the clarion bells are trying to get people to understand.
This is not a bunch of little idiots that write laws in Congress with their unintended consequences.
And by the way, I don't think there are too many unintended consequences when liberals pass their stupid laws that destroy people's lives either.
No, I don't.
I think they, in some cases, they don't appreciate the dynamism of the economy when they come up with laws that punish certain types of economic activity.
When it comes to the liberal judiciary, these are leftists, folks.
They have every intention of changing the way this country looks, cutting this country down to size.
We've been through all the reasons.
They think we're too big.
We're stealing the world's resources.
We're destroying the planet with global warming.
We've got this idiot president they can't figure out how to beat.
He's so stupid, he keeps beating them.
And this is, we just, we've got to get rid of him.
He's illegitimate.
His war is unjust.
His policies are unjust.
Look, there's a systematic, and it's been going on for quite a while, desire to change or get rid of the institutions and traditions that have always defined and maintained the country's greatness.
Very serious problem.
Be right back.
Ha, and welcome back.
Hill Rushboe having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, folks, in this last conversation we had with the last caller, we're not at Miranda Rights yet.
We don't know where we're going, so I'm mentioning that simply as a possibility.
We could get there with this ruling.
We're not at Miranda Rights yet.
U.S. soldiers do not have to Mirandize Sahib and Skyhook when they capture them in Basra.
So they're not going to be bringing them to Club Gitmo anyway.
That's the point.
But the reason is that the Supreme Court has not yet explained what due process rights the enemy gets.
They are waiting to second guess whatever we do.
See, the leftists on this court purposely are leaving things open and undefined because people will continue to try to work around this decision.
So as a workaround is perhaps hatched, then the court gets to rule on it against, no, you can't do that either.
So a lot of this remains undefined right now.
What this is about, this decision today, what it is about now is access to civilian courts to raise objections to their detention.
That is forcing the government to tell a civilian judge the reason that the enemy is being held.
At some point, Miranda might get raised.
20 other due process issues might.
But at this point, we just don't know.
There's a lot left open here.
Now, that's the real problem with this decision.
When you have judges making their decisions this way, the real issue is separation of powers.
Now you have judges making decisions that used to be made by the commander-in-chief, which is why some of us think this is a wholesale violation of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.
But the Supremes, what are we going to do about that?
They can sit there and write their own laws.
Again, Miranda's the extreme aspect of it.
The bigger issue is who makes these decisions in the middle of a war.
Are we going to turn over more and more aspects of fighting a war to the Supreme Court and the U.S. judiciary?
Are we going to leave it where it's always been constitutionally in the executive, the commander-in-chief?
And I might add that judges are the least qualified to make these decisions.
The least qualified.
By the way, the official title, McCain, was half right.
They are unlawful enemy combatants.
He said unlawful combatants left out unlawful enemy combatants.
AJ in Millstone, New Jersey, thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you here.
Mr. Limbaugh, it's a great honor to speak to you, sir, and on my birthday, too.
What an added bonus.
Happy birthday to you, sir.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
You know, I want to talk a little bit about this upcoming election.
Look, I'm not a McCain fan in the least.
He's wrong on a whole host of issues, but I think it's a fundamental question here.
You know, is this great union of ours going to survive?
And I think we need to have someone who's good on the war.
We can't have this surrender, this appeasement that Obama's going to bring.
You know, this is from a guy who just came back from my first tour in Iraq.
You know, the war is the number one issue for me.
For me, we can't afford to surrender on it.
You know, I wanted to say something, too, about the Allen brothers.
I had some of that actually before I left.
It's phenomenal.
When I came back here, I was looking forward to getting some more.
Unfortunately, on a private salary, it's hard to come by, but I'm looking forward to hopefully soon.
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
It is succulent and delicious stuff.
I want to go back to something you said about you don't want to lose the union.
Is our great union going to survive?
Yes, the union's going to survive.
The question is, what's it going to look like?
You know, the union, as you call it, the nation, has a uniqueness due to its founding.
And its founding was basically that on natural law and common sense.
And this is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and throughout the Constitution.
And at the root, the foundation of all this is individual liberty and freedom because that's how we were created with inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
And that's why the tenets of conservatism will never go out of style because basic liberty will never go out of style.
It is basic liberty and freedom that provides the greatest obstacle to the left in changing the country to what they want it to be.
They want it to be a socialist type country, a bigger and bigger government.
They are naive or dangerous or both.
They're upset by the inequality of outcomes throughout society.
It's not fair.
They think that the country can be perfected.
Perfected equals everybody is the same.
Nobody has an advantage over anybody else for whatever reason.
And as long as those circumstances exist in others, then this country is one that's unjust.
An example of an unfair advantage over others is our large military, our nuclear arsenal.
This makes this country unjust and unfair.
It's not fair.
We can dominate and control anybody else we want to.
And so in order to prevent us from doing that, they have taken steps over the years to weaken the ability and the strength of the U.S. military and the executive to act militarily.
And when they have not been able to stop us acting militarily, then they do what they've been doing here during the Iraq War, and they do everything they can to secure the defeat of the U.S. military.
These are people who, in varying degrees and for multiple reasons, do not like America as it is currently constituted and wish to change it.
And it is all based on this notion that they believe we can be perfected.
They, of course, defining what is imperfect from person to person, from institution to institution.
Now, a lot of people have asked me, well, Rush, how come it's so easy for these people to get this done?
Why are there so many of these people?
The answer is simple, but it's complex at the same time.
And it is rooted in the notion that anything that is not, by definition, conservative will be liberal.
Liberal is a natural emotional state.
Conservatism requires an intellectual education, application, and understanding.
Let me give you an example of this.
Now, you people have listened to this program long enough.
You understand where I come down when it comes to free markets and business.
Purpose of business is not to create jobs for the community.
It's to seek a profit in the product or service that they manufacture or provide for a whole host of reasons.
Whatever they do to ingratiate themselves in the community is a PR battle or a PR marketing endeavor, but that's not why they exist.
Companies don't exist for you to have a job.
Whoever had the original idea for Johnson ⁇ Johnson's baby oil thought that there might be practical applications for it in society that would make him a lot of money.
And at the same time, do well for the people that bought it.
He didn't say, you know what?
Cincinnati needs employees.
They need houses, need hospitals.
I think I'll start a company.
It's not how it happens.
I was talking to Professor Hazlett when I could get him away from my Mac Pro the other night, my MacBook Pro.
And I was asking him, we were talking about economics.
He's an economist, a classic economist.
And when you listen to him explain it, it is just as simple to understand as two plus two is four.
But for those who've never been trained in it and those who have not applied an attempt to understand it, it's Greek.
And we were talking, I asked him this question.
I wanted his theory.
Why do so many people, for example, end up hating the one group of guys that's doing anything to make sure there's gasoline at their tank?
Why do so many Americans want to just skin them alive when in fact the people that are making it hard for there to be gasoline in the tank and the people that are responsible for raising the prices are in fact the Democrats and legislators and others, the environmentalists, who are preventing an increase in supply for whatever reason?
How come the environmentalists aren't the ones that are hated?
I said, Professor, how come the big oil companies are?
And he started into his answer, and I said, wait a minute, I can answer this myself.
Because I was once one of these people that looked at management and thought, gee, what a bunch of cold-hearted, cruel SOBs before I understood various basics and realities.
Now, what I'm going to say here is not to be critical of the company I'm going to mention.
In fact, it was one of the greatest five-year educations I ever had in preparing me for getting back to radio was the five years I spent working in sales for the Kansas City Royals.
Now, I was 28 years old when I started there, and I was making $12,000 a year.
This is 1979.
And that was embarrassing.
I'd quit radio.
I thought, well, I gave it my best shot.
wasn't going to work, but this was not even one-third what I was making when I left radio and went to the baseball team.
$12,000 a year at age 28 was embarrassing.
And I got a $1,000 a year raise every year.
So after five years, when I left, I was making $17,000.
And then I was 33.
It was still embarrassing.
$17,000 a year at age 33.
I'm 57 now, so what's 53, 50, what is it, 24 years ago?
While I'm making my $17,000, $18,000 a year.
And by the way, I'm driving a clunker car that I can't keep running.
I had a house that I had no business buying, but everybody said, buy a house, you need equity.
But I couldn't afford to maintain the house.
I couldn't barely afford to payment.
The house payment and the MasterCard bill came at the same two-week period a month.
I had to delay one of them every month.
I switched off delaying them.
And I knew that the people I worked for understood this because I complained about it, asked for a raise.
They'd say, no, do some work.
You want a raise, do some more work.
We already work in 18-hour days during homestands.
So I went out, started selling more advertising on signage in the ballpark and the scoreboard publications.
I said, can I get a commission?
No, they're going to give you a commission.
Why not?
Well, got to give George Brett a commission for every home run he hits tomorrow.
I was going to sell more tickets.
I mean, we can't upset the apple cart.
And I'm sitting there pulling my hair out.
Everybody in advertising sales gets commissions.
And then in the offseason, I'm watching them redo the landscaping around the ballpark and they're putting in hundreds of thousands of dollars of trees.
And all I'm asking for is $5,000.
It would make all the difference in the world, but nope, we don't have it.
And I'm sitting there, God, these guys, they're just inhuman.
These guys don't have any compassion whatsoever.
What the truth of the matter was that they weren't running their business to make my life solvent, and they weren't running their business to make me happy and keep me there.
I had a job that if I decided to leave, they could fill for less than half what they were paying me because it was, you know, baseball teams, everybody in the world.
The doctors from all over Kansas City would call and beg to be the team doctor for nothing.
Everybody wants to hand.
A team back then was winning big.
But landscaping the ballpark, that's part of the upkeep of the property, which is required.
Business expenses are what they are.
You don't pay more than you have to for anything.
And if you, in this situation, I was involved in the revenue stream somewhat, but it didn't count because they said, look, you know, Rush, you've got a lot to learn here.
You may be out selling advertising in the scoreboard and the signage in the ballpark and so forth.
But if you leave tomorrow, do you think we're going to lose ads?
The phone's going to ring here.
We'll find somebody to answer it.
It's the way the business was.
The job I had had a limit.
It had a limit based on the business requirements, and they were not there to treat me.
I mean, they treated me nice.
I don't want to give the impression here that they were mean about any of this.
It was just their business, the way they ran it.
They had to allocate most of their funds for players.
Players are what generated a revenue for them.
The ballpark signage revenue back then, the scoreboard advertising, it wasn't that much.
It was nice to have it.
The players are what generated ticket sales, season ticket sales, a number of other things.
That was the most, I'd not gone to colleges, and I didn't have any fundamental formatically presented Econ 101 classes.
But once you understand these various aspects of things, then it all takes a different picture.
But a lot of people don't.
I understand why people hate management.
I understand why people think they're being screwed with, why they're being treated unfairly, why management doesn't look at them as human beings and see if they only earned another $5,000 here would change their life.
But as I was told, work harder.
You know, go earn it if that's what you want.
And if it's not here, if we don't have it here for you, go get it someplace else.
If I hadn't had this education and a little foundation of conservatism when I was being raised, I could be one of these people today that hates big oil companies for not understanding what they do.
Back after this, I'm going to save these next two stories for tomorrow and take some phone calls.
But the New York Times has actually run a story about maybe there's too much free speech in the United States.
And there's also a column here by Gail Collins, who is, I think, the editorial page editor of the New York Times called Barack's Bad Day.
It's about his vice presidential veter leaving.
Both these stories are stunning.
I haven't time at the moment to give them the time they deserve.
So I'm going to put them here in the stack that is reserved for tomorrow and go to the phones.
William in Livermore, California.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good.
Long-time listener.
I've been listening since about 1990.
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to make one point.
If the court is so bent on trying to disregard the Constitution, and yet we demand that our soldiers protect and honor the Constitution, why not encourage these boys just not to enlist and see what the heck they're going to do with nobody there to protect them?
Well, I understand your anger on this, but that's not the right moral of the story.
You know what the moral of the story is?
What's that?
Don't take any prisoners.
Yeah, I agree, but we don't want to turn our kids into murderers either.
Don't fall for this.
We're in a war.
Well, I understand that, but there's still a difference between cold blood and, you know, in the middle of the day.
The reason these clowns are called unlawful enemy combatants is because they do not get official privileges of the Geneva Conventions.
And yet the Supreme Court took care of that.
The Supreme Court said, oh, yes, they do.
They do get protection under the Geneva Conventions, even though, read the conventions.
They are not covered.
But it's been extended to them.
Well, you know, I understand, I'm not saying turn them into murderers.
We just don't want.
I'm not suggesting we walk into some terrorist house while he's asleep or smoking his peace pipe or whatever and go rat-tat-tat.
Not suggesting we do that at all.
I'm not suggesting we become like them in defeating them.
But at the same time, either that or we, well, I don't even know how we can set up other prisons.
I would just rather the kids just stay home, you know, until we have a government that decides to get away from it.
They'll just start a draft.
If you do that, and the left will gin that all up again.
Back here in Justice.
Just a second, stay with us.
I ought to say that.
Open Line Friday tomorrow, folks.
As always, everybody here but Mr. Snurdley looks forward to that.
▲
Export Selection