Rising Republican star Bobby Jindal 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 Jindal, greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number, if you want to join us, is 800-282-2882.
The email address is lrushbow at EIBnet.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 you, I think I've been wrong about something.
I've just learned how weak our economy really is.
And the news is not pretty, ladies and gentlemen.
It's very, very sad, disappointing news.
I mean, it's tough for me to even give you this news.
You know, I try to focus on the upbeat and the positive.
I try to focus on good cheer.
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, and 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 on our pets.
This year, we're only going to spend $43.4 billion, basically $2.2 billion more.
This is not good.
This news 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 Democrat jargon of things, this is a cut.
Pet spending has been cut by pet owners.
You could have Jack Murth out there with a headline, Murtha blames it on Marines.
Harry Reid 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 5%.
I mean, what is happening to us as a people?
I know the reason all these senior citizens having to eat dog food because of Bush-draconian economic policies.
And not only that, the number of people who need to eat dog food do not have can openers.
Obviously, pets are indeed suffering.
Turns out one of McCain, one of Senator Obama's military advisors, four-star general by the name of Meryl McPeak, 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 Moos 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 Newsbusters, Noel Shepard.
So McCain's too fat and he's too stupid to be president because 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.
300 jobs at the Palm Beach Post will be cut.
130 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 Eagle 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 100 jobs, including 55 to 60 in the newsroom through buyouts, layoffs, and the closing of an open position.
The 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 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 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, 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.
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 go, we have to stay profitable.
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 Nogurney 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 multi-million 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.
Meaning, he's still out there crying over spilt milk in private.
He's still out there.
He gets together with his buddies or whoever.
I can't believe that.
They played the race guard on me, and they said, I don't want to play the race guard, and now I'm out of there.
I got nobody in this race, and I got to go out there and fake it like I'm for the black guy.
She, I don't know, 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 standard.
But give me a minute here.
Yeah, I put it in Obama.
I think it's the LA Times.
It's 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 opportunity.
And now it's just deteriorated into personal attack after personal attack.
Oh, boo-hoo.
Every year we get this in the drive-bys.
It's part of their formula.
Every year we're going to have a campaign.
It finally, finally meets the test.
Civility, bipartisanship.
And inevitably, they always deteriorate into the campaigns of old, and the drive-bys 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 Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision on the gun ban, the Second Amendment.
He was in Pittsburgh today at the campus of Carnegie Mellon University.
Bloomberg TV Peter Cook was interviewing 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.
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 D.C. handgun ban overshot the runway, that it went beyond constitutional limits.
Stop saying, remember, we've got the soundboard.
We just played it last hour.
Last year, or maybe not even a year ago, he thought it was 100% constitutional.
This is John Kariitis.
Every sentence has a but.
Well, I think the sun's going to come up tomorrow, but if it doesn't, John McCain will have the answer.
Here's the rest of the bite.
It doesn't mean that local communities can't pass background checks that they can't make sure that they're tracing guns that have been used in crimes to find out where they got them from.
So there's still room for us to, I think, have some common sense gun laws that are also compatible with the Second Amendment.
And 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-abiding gun owners are protected in their rights.
Wow, my friend, the radiance of this brilliance, even though he's in Pittsburgh and these words were 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 goblety gook.
Here's the next question.
A lot of Democrats will say the court got it wrong.
You're not in that camp?
I'm not in the camp of their overall reasoning.
Now, how they applied it and how they will apply it in the future, I think, is the key question.
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.
This is, well, no, actually I was going to say it's dangerous, but it's actually eye-opening.
I mean, 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 just said he approved of it.
He just said he liked the decision.
He just said the decision was good.
He said it was a common sense.
Now he doesn't agree with the reasoning and how they came to this decision.
Well, look, like I said, I don't want to establish a habit here of breaking down and analyzing this guy or parsing his work.
This is worth derision.
This is worth being laughed at.
To try to take this guy seriously is to fall into a trap.
Let's go to the phones.
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'm a law student here in Texas.
And one of the privileges we've had, because Justice Scalia is a very private person, but he'll occasionally speak at different law schools.
And we had that opportunity earlier this year.
And, of course, someone asked about the Hellert case.
And like most justices or any good justice would say, he said that he couldn't comment on it because it was a pending case.
But what his follow-up comment was is, and I know we've been speaking to original 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 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 was through his implication.
And then we get into this point today talking about these rights.
Another beautiful point that he made was what right?
Because this is just a group of people that don't like a right that America has and the way it's used.
And so they hire an attorney.
Well, this is the opposite point.
Wait, I've lost you.
Hold on a minute.
I'm losing you.
This is just a group of people that don't have to say that.
Because the city, D.C., does not like this right.
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.
And one of Scalia's great points is, what gives you the right to argue in front of nine judges and blacks to take away the constitutional right that's been given?
Just like that.
So it speaks to the heart of the greatness of the man.
And, you know, I think.
Well, okay, there's another way of putting this.
And to me, this case, you know, you wonder why did the Supreme Court take it?
Why do they reject certain cases?
Why do they take some?
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, the intent of the founders.
He cares about the original meaning of the Constitution.
And some might say, well, what's the difference?
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 Limbo, 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.
Megadeto's.
Thanks much.
You were commenting on Dahlia Lithwick earlier, 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.
That doesn't surprise me.
Newsweek's got a bunch of morons right 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 do this, let me give people one more bit of information about Dahlia Lithwick.
She's a lawyer.
She clerked for somebody on the U.S. Ninth Circus, clerked 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 him a call and let him know he's changed color?
Well, maybe Dahlia Lithwick knows something we don't know.
Maybe he puts on blackface before he goes out in public.
How can this man get in 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 who is a liberal.
There's no thug good 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'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 results, of outcomes, of goods, services, and income.
It's a very unfair society.
We need to equalize people, grant them new rights, and so forth.
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.
Anyway, I thought I heard that name.
I never heard of the woman before, and I thought you might be interested.
Read that last sentence again from Newsweek, folks.
Newsweek, who, by the way, latest poll shows that Obama is a by how many over 15?
Okay.
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 beyond that, and I know what she means.
As I said, she's accusing Clarence Thomas of being not authentic.
Well, it's an insult.
Of course it's an insult.
What do you think liberals do?
Well, Newsweek should know better.
Don't they have proofreaders?
Newsweek want 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 that wouldn't be in there.
That piece is designed to get you up, you know, a bit out of shape.
Oh, it did.
And then I heard you mention her name this afternoon and it rang a bell because I was beside myself from reading it last night.
It's 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 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, speculation on doom and gloom.
The worst rotten things that could happen.
Experts say global warming could lead to more terrorism.
I got the story.
I 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 you take a look, folks.
I want you to make a study of this.
It isn't hard.
Go to any webpage you like.
Look at the vast majority of the stories outside of sports 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, you're next.
Joe, great to have you here.
How are you, Mr. Lumbar?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
I am neither white nor old, so I have some credibility here, I suppose.
Let's see, if you're neither white nor old, then you would be young and what?
I am my father's black and my mother is 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 questioning me.
You can do whatever you want and have it explained.
Exactly.
Well, I have something to say as far as the Constitution.
I know you were talking about our defensive position here.
Yes.
I got to say this much.
I don't think enough people in the United States know what the Constitution is or know what it says.
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 my students knew nothing 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 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 people are aware of the Constitution.
I think they think the Constitution is where they're going to get health care.
The Constitution is going to mandate for them that they are going to have whatever they want.
The Constitution says that.
I don't think that you're right.
I think there's a way too large number of Americans who are not taught properly what the Constitution is, have no, 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 225 short years.
That's true.
And, you know, you said earlier in the week about the dumbing down of education, and I'm telling you, it's absolutely deliberate as a former school teacher.
And it's 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.
Were you reprimanded for correcting their grammar because you were insulting them?
Well, you know why it 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 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.
All the while, here I am, a black Hispanic male, and 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, you know, I cited people like Frederick Douglass, who learned to read and became one of the most eloquent speakers and writers in America.
But anyway, I was chastised for that in the schools because I believe it's my duty to correct people's grammar, especially as an English teacher, regardless of the consequences, which ultimately were that I was fired.
I agree totally with that.
I think that's your job.
Sure.
Well, not only as a teacher, but just as a citizen of the U.S., it's my job to help young people, especially, to learn how to speak correctly, how to read, and how to understand what they read.
But 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 disagree with any of that.
You said you joined the military.
Where in the military are you?
I am in the New York National Guard, Army National Guard.
Army National Guard.
And you described that as an upgrade from teaching in the Bronx.
Absolutely.
You mean you feel safer in the National Guard?
Well, I feel safer, A, because I don't have students attempting to swing at me, which did happen on occasion.
But also, it's a job teaching in the Bronx that it's pretty insulting.
You go to work 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 if that sounds pessimistic, but it is the truth.
It's what I wrote my thesis.
You're a Hispanic American.
Let me share with you a story I have here from one of my stacks of stuff.
I want to get your reaction to this.
It's a story from North Carolina.
Dissatisfied with teaching in Spanish 85% of the time, a North Carolina scruple 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 Schruel Board today, 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 you can't speak this language, you are a second-class citizen.
There's no way around it.
And sadly enough, I think that's exactly where the liberals want you so that you can continue to vote them in.
But it handicaps you.
And look, 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 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 so 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 one of your early Rush to Excellence tours.
It would be in Montecito, and that would be back like in 1989.
No, it wasn't.
It was at the Elks Lodge, almost in Goleta.
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.
What year was this?
Oh, golly.
It was at least, what, 15, 20 years ago.
Yeah, closer to 20.
You know, at the very beginning, you started going around and making...
Are you sure this wasn't up in Santa Maria?
No, nope.
Santa Barbara.
I'm a pastoral.
I'm in Santa Barbara.
I'm in the Santa Barbara Elk's Lodge, so I know that.
I know, but they got an Elks Lodge in Santa Barbara?
Oh, you betcha.
Okay, well, if you say so.
So, I wanted to comment.
One of the earlier callers was talking about how the Constitution gave us rights.
And that's not exactly accurate.
The Constitution basically set out the form of government, but our founding fathers were not really secure enough that original God-given rights were protected.
And so basically, 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 affirms the God-given right to defend yourself.
Precisely.
Self-or your country.
Absolutely.
And all of these things, I don't know.
I heard the mayor of D.C. on the television this morning talking about.
Oh, I bet that ought to be good.
I haven't heard that guy yet.
What he said.
Oh, boy.
Well, he's saying that, you know, this doesn't affect the idea that they can still have their registration that all guns have got to be registered or they're not legal, and that they have the right to outlaw either automatic or semi-automatic guns.
Anyway, they're just going on, you know, like crazy.
We got a lot more work to do.
Oh, I know.
I know.
But see, this is what I said at the beginning of the program.
While the decision is good, 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 votes.
And it's given right to self-defense.
Yeah.
Well, the point, that's exactly what the meaning of the Second Amendment was going to mean, of course.
It was almost wiped out, and now you've got this mayor in Washington saying, okay, well, here's how I'm going to make sure I can still do what I want to do.
So 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 thing was unconstitutional and illegal from the moment it was imposed.
Absolutely.
I appreciated your comment about that, you know, that people have misconstrued the actual meaning of what a right is.
And that they confuse it with privilege.
Exactly.
And also, one of your commercials while I was on hold was talking about the right to smear your body with mayonnaise.
Or feces and call it performance art at Carnegie Hall.
I have a right to do it.
I have a right to put a crucifix of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine and call it art.
I have a right.
No, that's not a right.
No, these are.
Of course not.
But look, that definition of right has been bastardized to the point that it really means entitlement now.
And a lot of Americans think American means entitled too, back after this.