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, Rush Limbaugh, 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 L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Page six.
New York Times, a 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 UN 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.
Forty-three percent 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 Shannon 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 dinner liberals and they convince a hundred percent or fifty percent 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 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, isn't it for all of you frustrating as well, just as it is for me?
We know our ideas don't 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.
Uh in politics.
So that's the lesson here.
I mean, this ought to this 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.
The liberals want no part of these kinds of debates.
Uh uh either in Congress or anywhere else.
And it's in it here, in fact, I mentioned moments ago the uh 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, yes, since that's a good point.
Since we are winning in Iraq now, is this that's that's no coincidence, by the way, that Pelosi has come up with the idea to ban Democrat or 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.
Uh get people that can say what we believe can articulate it, and we'll win most of the time.
And that's 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 dollars for Anheuser Busch, St. Louis.
That's $65 a share for the company.
Uh 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 NBIV.
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 Bush, 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 Bush.
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 brand?
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 I if if if if INBEV offers the 46 billion dollars, and if the shareholders of Anheuser Bush, 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 NBEV 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, snurly saying, why wh why why why is this why is this any different than any other such deal?
Why is this I 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 Enheiser Bush, it is iconic.
The Clydesdale's grants farm, all of that.
But it isn't any different, Snertley.
I mean, Abu Dhabi buying the Chrysler building in New York.
Uh 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 gonna be wearing kimonos to work before it's all over.
Uh none of that, none of that transpired, and uh, and 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 if you're on the board of directors at Annaheiser Bush, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders.
Somebody, 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 it's uh it's a tough thing.
And then and this is only the original offer.
There's nothing to stop NBEV from going higher.
I understand the emotional aspects of this.
Anheuser Bush.
Uh Ed Martin's right is an iconic uh American company.
No more iconic company can you find than Anheuser Bush, and people are gonna 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 White.
Or coors.
Or Coorslight.
What's to stop INBEV from buying them down the road, Brian?
Where are you gonna draw the line?
What if what if what if they come along and want to buy Coca-Cola?
At any rate, look, we a little long here.
We've 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 combat.
Well, start again.
Uh it obviously concerns me.
Uh 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 that's definitive.
Uh back to the phones, I think.
Bill and LeClair, Iowa, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call today.
Yes, sir.
Hey, uh, just real quick, if enemy command combatants have access to the U.S. court.
No, no, no.
They're called unlawful combatants.
Oh, yeah.
So Senator McCain called them unlawful combatants.
Okay.
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 what worries me is here's here's what's going to happen with this.
These 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 gonna be they're gonna be their lawyers, they're gonna lawyer up and they're gonna have plenty of ACLU type lawyers defending them on the contest uh uh uh uh in the 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 that's that's that's what happens here.
But but doesn't this turn over uh a part of the military code of justice?
The Supreme Court this is what you the Supreme Court has just said that that all these these uh uh military tribunal things are unconstitutional.
That they can't do that, that the that the these people this is what's this is what's breathtaking, groundbreaking, whatever about this.
These are prisoners of war.
They have constitutional rights to have the charges again, the quote unquote charges against them heard in a U.S. courtroom.
These are people cra captured on the battlefield.
You ask about the U.S. military, my question is are we gonna have to track down the people that captured each individual citizen or or uh sorry uh enemy combatant, and then go through the in term in terms of testimony, the process that led to the capture and transporting them to Guantanamo,
and at some point are we gonna say these people, enemy combatants, soldiers, whether they're 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 and I don't I guess they don't understand why the Supreme Court wouldn't have understood it.
Doesn't this give the U.S. courts then they uh understood it perfectly?
The five justices on this court understood perfectly what they were doing.
They didn't make a mistake.
Well, well, doesn't this give the the federal courts though the uh ability to rule whether or not their capture was under excessive force?
Yeah, and not only that, it gives the federal court the decision to determine whether or not they're actually the enemy.
Well, uh that too, but they can also say that well, the the the systems that they used to capture us, the weapons they used to capture us were excessive force.
We presume well that that's who knows where this is gonna 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 if you're gonna grant these people constitutional rights, at what point do you say, okay, those are all the constitutional rights you get?
If we're gonna grant them constitutional rights, habeas corpus to go into 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 that then 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 for away away from the commander-in-chief and turn it over to themselves.
I I just see that this is gonna have so many unintended consequences.
No, it has many intended consequences.
This is what this is what many of us who ring the clarion bells are trying to get people to understand.
This this is not a bunch of you know little you know, 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.
I I no, I don't.
I I I don't I think I think they uh I in some cases they you know don't appreciate the dynamism of the economy when they come up with laws that punish certain types of uh economic activity.
When you come to the liberal judiciary, these are these are leftists, folks.
They they have every intention of changing the way this country looks, cutting this country down to size.
Uh they'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.
Uh 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 uh we just we gotta get rid of him.
He's illegitimate, his war is unjust, his policies are unjust.
Uh it's it's look at there's a systematic, and it's been going on for quite a while, desire to change the uh 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.
Hell Rushbo having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, folks, in this, you know, last conversation we have with the last caller.
I'm we're we're not at Miranda rights yet.
I 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.
We the U.S. soldiers do not have to memorize Sahib and Skyhook when they capture them in Basra.
Uh so they don't they're not going to be bringing up Club Gidmo anyway.
Uh 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, this this is the leftists on this court purposely are leaving things open and undefined, because they're gonna people will continue to try to work around this decision.
So as a workaround is uh is perhaps hatched, then the court gets to rule on it against no, you can't do that either.
So a lot of this a lot of this remains undefined right now.
What what 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, twenty other due process issues might.
But at this point, we just don't know.
There's a lot left open here.
Now that's 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 the 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 enemy, 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.
Uh, you know, I want to talk a little bit about uh this upcoming election.
Look, I'm not a not a McCain fan in the least.
Uh 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.
Um this appeasement that Obama's gonna bring.
You know, this from a guy who just came back from my my first tour in Iraq.
Um, you know, the war is the number one issue for me.
For me, we can't afford to surrender on it.
I you know, I wanted to say something too about um the uh Allen brothers.
I had some of that actually before I left.
Um it's phenomenal.
When I came back here, I was looking forward to getting some more.
Uh unfortunately on a private salary, it's uh hard to come by, but uh I'm looking forward to hopefully soon.
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Uh it is it is succulent and uh delicious stuff.
I want to go back to something you said about you you don't want to lose uh the union, you is our great union going to survive.
Yes, the union's gonna survive.
The question is what's it gonna look like?
You know, the the 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 by our cre 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 a 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 that's 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 why 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 of listen 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 and Johnson's baby oil thought that there might be practical applications for it in society that would make him a lot of money.
And 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 Hazlet 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 uh have 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 uh 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, we're 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.
It in fact it was uh one of the great greatest five-year educations I ever had and 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 I'd quit radio.
I thought, well, gave it my best shot, it wasn't going to work.
But this was this was not even this is not even one third what I was making when I left radio and went back and went to the baseball team.
$12,000 a year, 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.
And then I was $33.
It was still embarrassing.
$17,000 a year at age 33.
I'm 57 now, so what's $9, $50, $53,000, $50,000, 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 can't I can't keep running.
I have a house that I had no business buying, but everybody said buy 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 of month.
I had to delay one of them every month.
I switched off delaying them.
And I knew that the people I work for understood this, because I, you know, complained about it, asked for a raise, they'd say no, do some work.
You want to raise, do some more work.
We already work at 18 hour days during home stands.
So I went out, started still 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.
It's going to sell more tickets.
I mean, why we can't we can't upset the apple cart.
And I'm sitting, I'm pulling my hair out.
Everybody in advertising sales gets commissions.
And then in the off season, I'm watching them redo the landscaping around the ballpark and are putting in hundreds of thousand dollars of trees.
And all I'm asking for is $5,000.
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 passion whatsoever.
What 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.
Doctors from all over Kansas City would call and beg to be the team doctor for nothing.
Everybody wants to.
And a team back then was winning big.
But landscaping the ballpark, that's 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 I was involved in the revenue stream somewhat, but it didn't count because they said, look, you know, Rush, you got a lot to learn here.
You may be out selling advertising in the scoreboard and the signage in the ballpark and uh so forth, but if you leave tomorrow, do you think we're gonna lose ads?
The phone's gonna ring here.
We'll find somebody to answer it.
So the way the business was.
Uh 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 and they weren't, they treated me nice.
I don't want to get the impression here that they were uh 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 you know, nice to have it.
The players are what generated ticket sales, season ticket sales, number of other things.
That was the most.
I'd not gone to college, as you know, I didn't have any fundamental formatically uh presented uh econ 101 classes.
Uh but it it it once you understand these these various aspects of things, then it all 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 earn 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 at 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 gonna 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 uh Gail Collins, who is uh, I think the editorial page editor of the New York Times called Barack's Bad Day.
It's about his uh vice presidential veter leaving.
Both these stories are stunning.
I haven't time at the moment to give them the time they deserve so only.
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.
Been listening since about 1990.
Thank you, sir.
Um I'd like to make one point.
If the court is so uh bent on trying to disregard the Constitution, and yet we demand that our soldiers uh you know protect and uh honor the Constitution, why not encourage these boys just not to enlist and see what the heck they're gonna do, you know, with with nobody there to protect them.
Well, yeah, 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 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 I understand that, but you there's still a difference between cold blood and you know, in 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 it's been extended to them.
Well, you know, uh I understand I'm not saying turn them into murderers.
We just we just don't want to be able to do that.
I'm not suggesting we walk into some terrace 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 um at the at the same time, either that or we we we don't even know how we can have how we can set up other prisons.
I would just rather the kids just stay home, you know, until we have a government that you know decides to do.
They'll just start a draft if you if you do that in a left will gin that all up again back here in just a second, stay with us.
I gotta say that.
Open line Friday tomorrow, folks.
As always, uh we everybody here but Mr. Snerdley looks forward to that.
▲
Export Selection