All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
June 26, 2008, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Rising Republican star Bobby Gindle signed legislation allowing judges to force convicted rapists to undergo chemical castration.
According to the Louisiana Advocate.
Supreme Court says they can't execute child rapists, but they can chemically castrate them.
Rising star Bobby Gendal, greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
A telephone number if you want to join us is 800-282-2882.
The email address is L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
We'll get to your phone calls here in the second segment coming up quickly.
I appreciate all of those of you on hold.
Be patient.
You're there because we wish to speak to you.
I have to tell, I think I've been wrong about something.
I have just I've just learned how weak our economy really is.
And the news is not pretty, ladies and gentlemen.
It's very, very sad.
Uh disappointing news.
I mean, it's tough for me to even give you this news.
You know, I I I try to focus on the upbeat and the positive.
I try to focus on good cheer.
Uh I try to stay away from speculation on negative doom and gloom stories, which is 90% of what is so-called news today.
But the bad news, the terribly disheartening news, in fact, news that some might conclude proves our declining ability to be compassionate in this country.
According to the latest statistics, our country, our people, our nation, will spend only 5% more this year on their pets.
Down from the usual 10% more on their pets.
Last year we spent 41.2 billion dollars on our pets.
This year we're only going to spend 43.4 billion, basically 2.2 billion more.
This is not good.
This this news could could cinch the election for Obama.
Can you see the headlines?
Bush's latest disaster, pet spending up only 5%.
Congress must act.
It is in the in the Democrat jargon of things, this is a cut.
Pet spending has been cut by pet owners.
You could have Jack Merth out there with a headline, Mertha blames it on Marines.
Harry Reed blames it on pet food speculators.
Pelosi says we have pay-go.
We need pet go.
Liberals in Congress could blame Republicans who veto their programs.
Obama could call for universal affordable government funded pet care.
Spending on pets is up only five percent.
I mean, I that this what what what is happening to us as a people.
I know the reason probably was all these senior citizens having to eat dog food because of uh Bush Draconian economic policies.
And not only that, the number of people who need to eat dog food that do not have can openers.
Say obviously the pets pets are indeed suffering.
Uh turns out one of one of uh McCain or one of uh uh uh uh Senator Obama's military advisors, four-star general by the name of Merrill McPeake, uh, said that McCain is too fat.
He did.
He said that Senator McCain is too fat.
Yeah, he was fresh out of jail, you know, McPeak said.
Skinny kid, all beat up, of course, physically, but quite thin.
They weren't feeding him very well in Hanoi.
He's done very well at the dinner table in Washington.
So the Obama campaign says that McCain is too fit.
A fat.
Have you seen McCain?
He's a stick.
He's about 5'6.
The last thing McCain is is fat.
Also, CNN is suggesting that McCain is too stupid to be president because he's computer illiterate.
He admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer.
Cindy handles all that stuff.
On Thursday, CNN's Jeannie Moss made the case that because McCain's not computer savvy, he's not qualified to be president.
She even quipped as a video of a stripper appeared on the screen.
At least John McCain knows the difference between a laptop and a lap dance.
She also took the time to demonstrate just how much of a techie Barack Obama is while adding a dash of Bush bash.
This is from her buddies at uh Newsbusters, Noel Shepherd.
So McCain's too fat and he's too stupid to be president because he he doesn't know how to use a computer.
And as I mentioned earlier, ladies and gentlemen, the Obama campaign staff is being cut way, way back all over the country.
Three hundred jobs at the Palm Beach Post will be cut.
One hundred and thirty newsroom jobs at the Palm Beach Post.
That's 40% of the newsroom staff.
40% of the Palm Beach Post jobs are being cut.
It is worse than expected.
The Kansas City SCAR and the Wichita Eagles said today they plan to cut a combined 132 jobs as their parent company, McClatchy, reduces its workforce by 10% as it struggles to attract advertising dollars.
The Obama campaign staff is taking hits all over the country.
In addition to that, the Baltimore Sun will cut about a hundred jobs, including fifty-five to sixty in the newsroom through buyouts, layoffs, and a closing of an open position.
The uh latest in a series of cuts to the venerable newspaper were announced Wednesday in a memo from publisher Tim Ryan to the newspaper staff.
Tough, tough news uh out there for the Obama campaign department staff cutbacks all over the place.
The editor of the Palm Beach Post said, I know they'll all end up in government somewhere.
I mean, what's the what's the difference being in government working in a newspaper?
A newspaper spout the government line when it's run by liberals and they oppose the government line when it's run by Republicans.
Anyway, the Palm Beach Post editor said, uh, these changes are necessary if we are to remain a strong and profitable company.
Why should they have any concern about being strong and profitable?
They don't want the oil companies to earn money.
Profitability in the oil business is bad, profitability in the drug companies is bad, profitability at Walmart's bad.
Profitability anywhere is bad.
It's if you make a profit somewhere, you're a suspect, but now all of a sudden these newspaper companies who are laying off all the Obama campaign staff going, we have to see profitable.
Why?
Why why why why should you meetheads have any profits?
I thought you were in this for the public good.
I thought you were doing this for the good of a nation.
New York Times today.
Delicate talks for Democrats on a path to a unified party by Adam Nagurney and Jeff Zelini.
At Mrs. Clinton's request, the lawyer Robert Barnett, wife of CBS or husband of CBS reporter at what's her name, Rita Braver, who has brokered multimillion dollar book deals for clients, including Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Bill Clinton, is working to hash out questions large and small as Hillary and Obama work toward a political merger.
The thorniest question, what to do about Bill Clinton, who friends say continues to refight the bitter primary fight.
What to do with him has yet to be decided by either side.
He's still out there crying over spilt milk in private.
He's still out there gets together with his buddies or whoever.
I can't believe that.
They played the race guard on me, and they said I'd the one to play the race guard, and now I'm out of there.
I got nobody in his race, and I gotta go out there and fake it like I'm for the black guy.
She, I don't know why I'm crying over spilt milk about this.
Maybe I ought to call Ralph Nader.
Join forces of Ralph Nader.
Some Clinton supporters are grousing that Mr. Obama has yet to make the symbolic gesture of writing a check for $2,300, the maximum campaign donation to help retire her debt of 12 million.
So, delicate talks for Democrats on a path to a unified party where the Messiah is their nominee and is supposedly the best at absolutely unifying people.
Let me find one other thing here before we go to the break.
Got to see this.
Maybe I put it in the Obama stack.
I probably did, and I'm looking at the general stack.
But give me this, give me a minute here.
Yeah, I put it in Obama's.
It's it's it's I think it's the LA Times.
Somebody lamenting.
We had such a great opportunity for a fresh campaign, a clean campaign.
A campaign above all the rigor, a campaign about issues.
We had such a golden up and now it's just deteriorated into personal attack after personal attack.
Oh, boo-hoo.
Every year we get this in the drive-by's, it's part of their formula.
Every year we're gonna have a campaign, it finally meets the test.
Civility, bipartisanship, and inevitably they always deteriorate into the campaigns of old and the drive-by start crying crocodile tears back after this.
All right, here's that piece.
And it's Dan Balls in the Washington Post.
A campaign between Senators Obama and McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new.
Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.
McCain has given a series of policy speeches, and Obama is beginning to do the same.
Whatever substance they may contain has been buried in negative counterattacks from the opposing camp.
Don't blame the media for this.
We blame the media for everything here.
Oh, we got we got we get Obama's uh reaction to the um Supreme Court decision on the gun ban, the second amendment, he was in Pittsburgh today at the campus of Carnegie Mellon University.
Uh Bloomberg TV Peter Cook was interviewing uh the Messiah, and Cook said the court today, very important ruling in regard to the handgun law in D.C. 5-4 ruling.
What's your reaction?
Now keep in mind there's no prompter here.
I believe that the second amendment means something, that it is an individual right, and that's what the Supreme Court held, and I so I agree with that aspect of the opinion.
What I've also said is that every individual right can be bound by the interests of the community at large.
And the Supreme Court agreed with that as well.
It looks to me that the DC handgun ban uh overshot the runway, that it uh went beyond constitutional limits.
Stop that.
Remember, we've got the sound belt.
I just played it last hour.
Last year, or maybe not even a year ago.
He thought it was 100% constitutional.
This is John Kerry Idis.
Every sentence has a but.
Well, I think the sun's gonna come up tomorrow, but if it doesn't, John McCain will have the answer.
Here's the rest of the bite.
You know, make sure that they're tracing guns that have been used in crimes to find out where they got them from.
Uh so there's still room for us to, I think, have some common sense gun laws uh that are also compatible with the Second Amendment.
And you know, the key is to try to stop using this as a wedge issue, and let's figure out an intelligent way where we can stop having kids being murdered on the streets while making sure that law uh Biden gun owners uh are protected in their rights.
Wow, my friend, the radiance of this brilliance, even though he's in Pittsburgh and these words were a digitally recorded, I am being overwhelmed by the unique, unspoken brilliance emanating from the Messiah.
I have never heard this kind of clarity before.
I have never heard somebody cut to the quick and take away the muck and make what's important visible as much as the Messiah has done here.
I am rendered almost speech what brilliance.
Maybe you're right.
Maybe you're right, just a bunch of gobbledygook.
Here's the uh here's the next question.
A lot of a lot of Democrats will say the court got it wrong.
Uh, you're not in that camp.
I'm not in the camp of their overall reasoning.
Now, you know, how they applied it and how would they all apply it in the future, I think, is is the key question.
Why I think it's very important for everybody to understand that the Supreme Court ruling did not say that you can't have common sense gun laws.
It just said that this particular case violated a basic principle that people do have a right to bear arms.
All right.
Um this is this is uh this is well, no, actually I was gonna say it's dangerous, but it's actually eye-opening.
I mean, this this typical liberal.
When he says that the he's he's not in the camp of their overall reasoning, how they applied it, and how it will apply.
He he just said he approved of it.
He just said he liked the decision.
He just said the decision was good.
He said it was common sense good.
Now he doesn't agree with the reasoning and how they came to this decision.
Well, look, like I said, I I don't I don't want to establish a habit here of breaking down and analyzing this guy or parsing his work.
It just he's this is worth derision.
This is worth being laughed at.
This is to try to take this guy seriously is to fall into the trap.
Let's go to the phones.
Uh Bud in Austin, your first day.
I'm up on the phone today, and I'm glad you held on.
Thank you.
Rush, what an honor and pleasure, sir.
Thank you, sir.
I am I I'm a law student here in Texas.
And one of the one of the privileges we've had uh because Justice Scalia is a very private person, uh but he'll he'll occasionally speak at different law schools.
And we we had that opportunity earlier this year.
And uh of course, someone asked about the Heller case.
And like most justices or any good justice would say, he uh he he said that he couldn't comment on it because it was a pending case.
But what his follow-up comment was is um, and and I know we've been speaking to original uh intent earlier on the show, is that I don't care what the original intent of the founders was.
What I care about is the original meaning of the Constitution.
What did it mean when it was first formed?
And of course, that that right that was given to the people through the second amendment is the right to individually keep and bear arms.
Which was affirmed today.
Yes, which which which is through his implication.
And then we get we get into this point today talking about these rights.
Uh another beautiful point that he made was what right?
Uh because uh this this is just uh a group of people that don't like a right that uh that that America has uh and the way it's used.
And so they hire an attorney.
Uh you know, well, I this is uh the opposite point.
Wait, I I've lost you.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on a minute.
I'm I'm losing you.
What this is just a group of people that don't have what who you talk about.
This the city, uh DC, does does not like this right.
They they don't like it.
And so they're allowed to pass this law, and they're allowed to say, we're going to take this away.
Um and and one of one of Scalia's great points is what gives you the right to argue in front of nine judges in black to take away the constitutional right that's been given.
Just like that.
So it it it it speaks to the heart of the greatness of the man.
And you know, I'm not sure.
Well, okay, there's a there's a there's a there's another way of putting this.
Uh and and to me, this is this case, you know, you wonder why did the Supreme Court take it.
Why do they reject certain cases?
Why do they take some?
Uh I don't know what the majority vote on taking this case was, but I'll bet you it was pretty high, because I think the liberals wanted to use this case to get rid of the second amendment.
We're buying into the notion that this case was about Heller versus D.C. Heller D.C. was the vehicle.
You read the dissents, I agree with you totally about Scalia, as everybody knows.
You read the dissents, read Breyer, and read John Paul Stevens, and read some of the comments from the idiots in the media, and you will clearly understand that what they sought to do was make the Second Amendment unconstitutional on the basis it has no application to today, because when it was first written, America was an entirely different country, which puts into great focus your comment on Scalia.
He doesn't care about the intending uh the intent of the founders, he cares about the original meaning of the Constitution.
And it some might say, well, what's the difference?
It's a it's a fine distinction.
There's a fine line there.
But this is scary.
Four Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court voted to just get rid of the Second Amendment.
That's too damn close.
Once again, Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote.
I don't know about you.
But it kind of bothers me that our constitution and the rights enumerated therein, at least as the court is currently constituted, hinge on how Justice Kennedy feels every day when he gets out of bed and goes to work.
Four justices voted to get rid of the second four liberal justices.
This is too close.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh saying what I mean, meaning what I say, and loving hearing myself say it.
To Kalamazoo, Michigan, this is Frank.
You're up, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, what an honor.
Megadettoes.
Thanks much.
You were commenting on uh Dahlia Lithwick earlier, uh Slate magazine.
Yeah.
As luck would have it.
I just got my new issue of Newsweek, and she's also got a column in there.
Well, that doesn't surprise me.
Newsweek's got a bunch of morons that write in there.
All right, here's the title of her article.
The High Court.
Colon, a user's guide.
I want to read you two sentences.
Anybody.
Before you before you do this, let me give people one more bit of information about Douggy Lithwick.
She lawyer.
She she clerked for somebody on the U.S. Ninth Circus.
Clerk for one of the judges on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
Now go ahead and read the two sentences.
Anybody who believes the current Supreme Court looks like America, needs to take a few more trips on a Greyhound bus.
Here's the good part.
All the judges are white and or old.
Rush, I know you're tight with the brilliant conservative justice, Clarence Thomas.
Yes.
Could you please give them a call and let them know he's changed color?
Well, I maybe Dahlia Lithwick knows something we don't know.
Maybe he puts on blackface before he goes out in public.
How can this be a good idea?
And Newsweek, don't they have proofreaders?
This is a national magazine.
It's embarrassing.
That's not what she means.
Okay.
Frank, what she means is there's not one black attitude on that court.
There's not one authentic slave blood black.
Oh, okay.
Who is a liberal.
There's no thuggood marshal.
Clarence Thomas may as well be white, is what she means.
She's a liberal.
The object of the court is not to look like America anyway.
The court is not to decide cases based on the makeup of America based on the demographics or any other categorization of the people who live here.
She is she's a great object lesson because she is a total misunderstanding of what the court's about.
She's trying to make that misunderstanding reality.
She wants the court to sit there and push her left-wing liberal agenda, which is based, of course, on there's not fair distribution of uh results, of outcomes, of uh goods, services, and income.
It's a very unfair uh society.
We need to equalize people, grant them new rights, and so forth.
That's she looks at the court as a purely activist liberal machine.
And it's pretty close.
They got four solid liberals and Justice Kennedy, you know, decides how he wants to go case by case.
It's so depressing.
Welcome to liberalism.
I know.
It's not just anyway.
I thought I heard that name.
I never heard of the woman before, and I thought you might be interested.
Read the read that last sentence again for it's a Newsweek, folks.
A Newsweek, who, by the way, latest poll shows that um Obama is a by how many over became fifteen?
Okay.
What does read the last sentence again out there, Frank?
All the judges are white and slash or old.
All the judges are white.
That's the first part of it.
Yeah, but no beyond that, and I know what she means.
She's as I say, she's accusing Clarence Thomas of being not authentic.
Well, it's an insult to the course it's an insult.
what do you think liberals do?
Well, Newsweek should know better.
Don't they have proof proofreaders?
You're gonna Newsweek won if it's in there, they wanted it to say what it says, Frank.
It's like if you watch a taped television program and there are obscenities or offensive things in it, they wanted them in there because if it's taped, they had a chance to redo it or take out the offensive things.
Same thing.
This thing that she wrote was submitted days before it goes to press.
They proofread it, they proofread it, they fact check it.
If they didn't want it in there, they wouldn't be in there.
That piece of word for it.
That piece is designed to get you up, you know, a bit out of shape.
Oh, it did.
And then I heard that then I heard you mention her name this afternoon, and that rang a bell, because I was beside myself from reading it last night.
It's uh just no truth in this country anymore.
No, no.
There's no truth or very little truth in the drive-by media.
There is plenty of truth in the uh in the country.
For example, story out there today.
OPEC predicting 175 barrel of oil by the end of the year.
So hasn't happened.
Media can't wait to run with that.
All media, most media today's speculation on doom and gloom.
The worst rotten things that could happen.
Exp there's experts say global warming could lead to more terrorism.
I got the story, just saw it.
Experts say global warming could lead to more terrorism.
That's not news.
It's not even fact.
It's in the future, and nobody knows.
And that you take a look, folks.
I want you to make a study of this.
It isn't hard.
Go to any web page you like, look at the vast majority of the stories, and you will see outside of sports, out and you will see that they largely deal with experts predicting doom and gloom down the road in the future.
Or governments doing it, or whoever.
Joe in the Bronx, your next Joe, great to have you here.
How are you, Mr. Lombard?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
Uh I am neither white nor old, so I have some credibility here, I suppose.
Well, let's see if you're neither white nor old, uh, then you would be young in what?
I am my father's black and my mother's Puerto Rican.
Okay, so you are a person of color.
Absolutely.
I can say whatever I want.
Now, which one?
Let's see, your father's black, so you do have slave blood.
That is correct.
Okay, good.
You qualify.
Yes, I can say whatever I want without anyone uh questioning me.
You can do whatever you want and have it explained.
Exactly.
Well, I have something to say uh as far as the Constitution.
Um I know you you were talking about our defensive position here.
Yes.
I gotta say this much.
I don't think enough people in the United States know what the Constitution is or knows what it says.
Uh they they know so little about it that they are not inclined to care much about decisions like this.
And I'm speaking as a former school teacher.
Presently I am in the United States Army, so I am now a soldier that is an upgrade from being a school teacher in the Bronx.
And uh my students knew nothing about they knew nothing at all about the Constitution or what it said.
It was my job, or I made it my job to post the Constitution, and presently, whenever I see people in the street, people in my church that know little or or speak as if they know much, but know very little about the Constitution.
I give them a copy of it.
I carry hundreds of copies in my bag, and I give them out to people in my church, people in the street, so they can get informed and maybe start to care about this great document here, inspired by God.
God bless you, sir.
You know, you're doing the Lord's work out there.
I fear that you're right.
I think I think people are aware of the Constitution.
I think they think the Constitution uh is uh where they're gonna get health care.
The Constitution's gonna mandate for them that that they uh uh are gonna are gonna have whatever they want.
The Constitution says that.
Uh I don't think that you're right.
I think there's there's a way too large number of Americans who are not taught properly what the Constitution is, have no knowledge whatsoever of it, and therefore a lot of Americans born and raised here do not have really roots, roots intellectual roots to the founding of the country to understand how special it is and why it's special and why it's great and why it has outrun the rest of the world in two hundred and twenty-five short years.
That's true.
And uh, you know, you said earlier in the week about you uh the dumbing down of education, and I'm telling you it's absolutely deliberate as a former School teacher, and it is part of the reason why people know so little about the Constitution.
They make it a point not to teach it.
They make it a point not to teach proper English.
I was actually reprimanded for correcting students' grammar and things of that nature.
I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous.
This deliberate attempt.
Why were we why were you why were you w were you reprimanded for correcting their grammar because you were insulting them?
Well well, you you you know why I was corrected.
Basically, it's a judgmental to correct.
And now I'm an English teacher at that, so it makes it even worse.
But I was taught even um to get my graduate degree.
I was taught in Lehman College that to correct a child's grammar is judgmental, it hurts their self-esteem.
Uh all the while, uh here I am, uh black Hispanic male, and I I would argue until I was blue in the face that my ability to speak this language to understand it to read it well, is the reason why I was able to get out of the ghetto, so to speak.
And uh, you know, I cited people like Frederick Douglass, who learned to read and became one of the most eloquent speakers and writers in America.
And uh, but anyway, I was chastised for that in the schools because uh look, I believe it's my duty to correct people's grammar, especially as an English teacher, regardless of the consequences.
What ultimately were that I was fired.
I agree totally with them.
I think that's your job.
Sure.
Uh well, not only as a teacher, but just I as a citizen of the U.S., it's my job to help young people, especially, to learn how to speak correctly and how to read and how to understand what they read, but it it's a deliberate attempt to dun down education here in America.
And it's a sad thing, and we need to fight against it.
Let me ask you about one thing that you said, because I don't I don't disagree with with any of that.
Uh you said you joined the military.
Where where in the military are you?
I am in the New York National Guard, Army National Guard.
You the Army National Guard, and you d you describe that as a as a as a as an upgrade.
Absolutely.
From teaching in the Bronx.
Absolutely.
You mean you feel safer in the National Guard.
Well, I I feel safer, um, A, because I don't have students attempting uh to swing at me, which uh did happen on occasion.
Um but also it it's just in it's it's the it's a job teaching in the Bronx that uh it's pretty insulting.
You you you go to work and uh under the guise of teaching, and all the while, if you're honest with yourself, you know that your job is to keep kids down.
And I'm sorry that that sounds pessimistic, but it is the truth.
It's what I wrote my thesis.
Let me let me so you're you're a Hispanic American.
Let me uh share with you a story I have here from my one of my stacks of stuff.
I want to get your reaction to this.
It's it's a story from uh North Carolina.
Dissatisfied with teaching in Spanish eighty-five percent of the time, a North Carolina scrule superintendent is pushing for a proposal that includes a plan for a school where Spanish is the predominant language.
Superintendent Peter Gorman pitched his proposal to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Screw Board today, uh yesterday, with provisions to combine two of its dual language programs and turn Collinswood elementary into a Spanish speaking school.
The reason he wants to do this is so that Hispanics do not lose their culture.
Given your experience as a teacher, if you have Hispanics in the country who are not encouraged to learn English, but instead are sequestered, segregated into their own school where they speak Spanish and maintain their culture.
What's going to happen to them?
Well, look, if if you can't speak this language, uh you are a second class citizen.
There's no way around it.
And but sadly enough, I think that's exactly where the liberals want you so that you can continue to vote them in.
But it it handicaps you, and look, uh I believe in full immersion.
You come to this country, jump into an all English environment.
That's how you learn the language.
That's how my wife learned the language, and it's the only way.
This idea of uh, you know, putting people in ESL, I don't buy into it at all.
And again, I got into a lot of trouble for voicing these types of opinions, but it's true, everyone knows it.
People are just afraid to say it.
Not you.
Absolutely not.
Not you.
Glad you called.
Thanks much, Joe.
You've been great.
Thank you.
Joe and the Bronx.
They're more like that than we know.
There are more Joes out there than we know.
Otherwise, we would be in the ash heap by now.
We'll be back after this.
Try this headline.
We're going to discuss this later.
World is effeminate thanks to men's fashion, says President's daughter.
The world is effeminate.
Effeminate, thanks to men's fashion says President's daughter.
But first, Chuck in Santa Barbara.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I met you when you were here in Santa Barbara on your one of your early rush to excellence tours.
That was actually would be in Montesito, and that would be back like in 1989.
No, it wasn't.
It was at the Elks Lodge, almost in Galita.
The Elks Lodge?
Yeah, that's where you put on your performance.
At the Elks Lodge?
That's correct.
I got a picture of us.
The Elks Lodge.
Well, if you say so.
So what what year was this?
Oh, golly.
It was at least what, 15, 20 years ago.
Yeah, that's closer to 20.
It was, you know, when you know when at the at the very beginning, uh you started going around and making uh you sure this wasn't up in Santa Maria?
No, no.
Santa Barbara.
I'm a pastor.
I mean Santa Barbara.
I know, but they got an Elk's lodge in Santa Barbara.
Oh, you betcha.
Okay, well, if you say so.
So I wanted to comment.
Uh one of the earlier callers was talking about uh how the Constitution gave us rights, and that's not exactly accurate.
Um the Constitution basically set out the form of government, but our founding fathers were not really uh secure enough that original God given rights were protected.
And so basically the the Bill of Rights goes through and simply affirms, not that the Constitution is giving us these rights, but these are acknowledged God given rights.
Precisely.
The Second Amendment doesn't really deal with guns directly.
What it does is it it affirms the God given right to defend yourself.
Precisely.
Or your country.
Absolutely.
And uh all of these things, I don't know.
I I heard the mayor of DC on the on the television this morning.
Oh, I bet that ought to be good.
I haven't heard that guy yet.
What he said.
Well, he's saying that, you know, this doesn't um affect the idea that they can still have their uh registration that all guns have got to be registration registered or they're not legal, and that they have the right to outlaw either either automatic or semi-automatic guns.
Uh anyway, they're they're just going on, you know, like crazy.
Yeah, we we got a lot more work to do.
Oh, I know.
I know.
This is but see, this is this is what I said at the beginning of the program.
While the decision is good, uh frankly, I get so upset or somewhat upset that people get so happy about it.
I can understand the happiness because we're under assault, but for Crying Out Loud, we came close to having the Second Amendment wiped out.
Well, or and given right to self-defense.
Yeah, um that well, the point that's exactly what the meaning of the Second Amendment was.
I mean, of course.
It was just it was it was almost wiped out, and now you've got this mayor in Washington saying, okay, well, here's how I'm gonna make sure I can still do what I want to do.
Yeah.
Uh this is so we're we're we're just we're all playing defense here too much.
The liberals are on constant offense, they're constantly assaulting the traditions and institutions.
And we're just defending them, and sometimes we lose.
But when we win, we go, well, we like this today.
This should have never even gotten to the Supreme Court.
This this thing was unconstitutional and illegal from the moment it was imposed.
Absolutely.
I appreciated your your comment about that, you know, that people have misconstrued the the actual meaning of what a right is.
Uh and that uh they confuse it with privilege.
Exactly.
And also uh uh one of your commercials while I was on hold was talking about the the right to to smear your body with mayonnaise or feces and call it performance art at Carnegie Hall.
Uh yeah, or or have a right to do have a right to put a crucifix of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine and call it art.
I have a right.
Yeah.
Well that that's not a right.
It's it, you know, these are well, of course not.
But but look at that definition of right has been bastardized to the point that uh it really means entitlement now, and uh a lot of Americans think American means entitled to back after this.
Two down one to go, fastest three hours in media.
Rush Lin Ball with a much needed timeout.
▲
Export Selection