All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:34
May 29, 2009, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed uh by the host on this program now documented to be almost always right, 99.1% of the time.
It's great to have you with us.
It's Friday, so let's keep going.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Now we're gonna get to your phone calls as quickly as possible.
I'm not gonna spend all day on the Soda Myor thing.
But as America's pinata.
I'm getting a little tired of getting whacked by everybody out there, and it's it's time to respond to some of it.
I don't often do it, because that's all I would do.
Today is an exception.
What we're going to do here at the beginning of this hour is we're going to go back in time.
We're going to go back to our archives and we're going to listen to how Democrats tried to destroy, with the help of CNN, Samuel Alito.
I want you to keep in mind, as you listen to these sound bites, that it is people like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean that these precious moderates will run to at the first sign of bluntness expressed from a Republican.
That is that is a sham.
Our side's buying hook, line and sinker.
It makes no sense.
But again, the Republican Party's all out of whack.
It's just messed up.
It's trying to appease its critics.
It's trying to make its critics happy.
It's trying to make its critics like them.
And as such, it doesn't say anything anymore.
It stands for absolute nothing.
It's just totally obedient to the left.
Before we get to the sound bites, I want to remind you of Janice Rogers Brown with the help of Jan LaRue from the American Thinker.com.
If they can stomach it, Republicans should prepare themselves for Sotomayor's confirmation hearing by reviewing tapes or reading transcripts of Judge Janice Rogers Brown's hearing.
Janice Rogers Brown was President George W. Bush's African American nominee to the D.C. circuit.
Democrats were not so smitten with her compelling life story.
They bored down on her.
They didn't care about her compelling life story.
Democrats, if they were being honest with themselves and true to what they say they believe in, they should have championed Judge Brown's confirmation, not because of her compelling life story, but because of her record as an exemplary judge committed to the rule of law, committed to equality for all Americans, and her limited role as a judge.
Instead, privileged, wealthy, white Democrats attacked Janice Rogers Brown as an extreme right-wing judge who didn't care about civil rights or the downtrodden.
They were unconstrained by accusations of racism and sexism.
Janice Rogers Brown, remember African American.
When the Democrats ended their nearly two-year delay, including a filibuster of her renomination in 2005, the attacks continued.
They accused her of racism.
They accused her of sexism.
And it did not hurt them with the black vote.
Did it?
They claimed their opposition wasn't sexist, that it wasn't racist.
Ted Kennedy ridiculed Bush nominees, including Janice Rogers Brown as Neanderthals.
He attacked Brown as another extreme right-wing candidate, a judicial activist who will roll back basic rights.
Pat Leahy, I oppose giving Justice Brown this lifetime promotion to the second highest court in our land because the American people deserve judges who will interpret the law fairly and objectively.
Janice Rogers Brown is a committed judicial activist who has a consistent record of using her position as a member of the court to put her views above the law and above the interests of working men and women and families across the nation.
Exactly.
What Sonia Sotomayor is, Janice Rogers Brown is not.
They were lying about her.
See, for those of you who think I should shut up and other critics ought to shut up, the difference is we tell the truth.
The Democrats lie about our nominees.
And you never tell them to shut up.
You never tell them to go to the back of the bus.
You never tell them to go easy and stay above the fray.
You never Lecture them about decorum.
Senator Dick Durbin, Janice Rogers Brown is one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees.
Chuck Schumer, Judge Brown is the least deserving of all of President Bush's appeal court nominees.
Many political pundits apparently share the Democrats' low opinion of Hispanic voters.
All we've heard thus far is Republicans don't dare go after Sotomayor or they'll lose the Hispanic voting block.
Democrats are counting on Hispanics, forgetting that it was Democrats who blocked Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada's nomination to the D.C. circuit solely because they couldn't abide the prospect that it would be Bush to elevate the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court.
They wanted to be the ones.
That's why they opposed the Medicare.
Part B entitlement.
They do entitlements.
Not us.
Hispanics should be intimidated by all of this race baiting.
They know the difference between addressing an issue and attacking a person.
But attacking a person is what Democrats do when a woman or a minority won't tow the party line as a judge.
Americans don't expect or want Republicans to behave like Democrats.
That's not what we're saying.
Do not confuse what I'm saying today with, we've got to act just like the Democrats.
The big difference is, we tell the truth.
you They make it up, they lie.
I don't, we're not out to destroy Sonia Sotomayor.
Her life, her reputation, her character, her job, her future.
Democrats.
Try that with every one of our nominees.
As Jan LaRue writes, a Latina woman can take it anyway, especially a former prosecutor who grew up in the South Bronx.
Besides, she's probably looking forward to the chance to prove she's smarter than the white guys.
Jan LaRue talking about Sotomayor.
Now, did that offend you?
I bet it offended some people.
I bet people who thought I was saying those words myself rather than reading Jan LaRue's words.
She just wants to prove she's smarter than the white guy.
Oh, Limbaugh, so racist.
You know people reacted to it that way.
Yet she is the one who said she's smarter and better than white guys.
To the audio sound bites, Ted Kennedy, January 9th, 2006.
His opening remarks on Sam Alito.
To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom.
In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches.
Judge Aliotto has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job.
That's the one.
In fifteen years on the bench, not one.
And when I look at that record in light of the 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, it's even more troubling.
That document lays out an ideological agenda that highlights his pride in belonging to an alumni group at Princeton that opposed the admission of women and proposed to curb the admission of racial minorities.
But Janice Rogers Brown creamed also for being divisive and a racist.
And yet, it's really rich to listen to Senator Kennedy say that Judge Olido has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color, alleging race discrimination.
Yet he will no doubt support a judge who's been nominated, who has made an overtly racist statement.
Chuck Schumer, January 31st, 2006, on the Senate floor, before the vote on Sam Alito.
While some may rejoice at Judge Alito's success, millions of Americans will come to know that the lasting legacy of this day will be ever more power for the president and less autonomy for the individual.
While some may exult at the packing of the court with yet another reliable extreme voice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, millions of Americans will be at risk of losing their day in court when they suffer the yoke of discrimination.
Samuel Alito has been on the Supreme Court since 2006.
Not one charge or allegation that he is unfair or discriminates has been made.
Reliable extreme voice.
Now the Democrats are allowed to speak this way when they're lying.
We, on the other hand, are not supposed to tell the truth about their nominees.
Here's Howard Dean suggesting Alito might be in the mafia.
I didn't put it out, but somebody did, so let's so I'll be responsible for it.
All right.
Um the uh president put out a sheet this morning, Republican talking points.
One of the things he said that was that uh Judge Alito is a spectacular prosecutor.
Well, turns out he wasn't quite so so spectacular, and he lost some important cases, and one is which that those guys, that particular case, those guys all got off, 20 of them, uh, without even putting up a defense witness.
So at least in that particular case, uh that's an example.
That was October 31st, 2005 on Hardball.
I should have given you the question that Matthews asked.
It's this.
Somebody in the Democrat Party putting out an attack sheet on this new justice nominee for the Supreme Court, Sam Alito.
And the first attack is that he was lenient on the mob back in a 1988 case.
He let the Lucchese family get off.
It says he was an embarrassment to the government, and here's a guy who's been tough on crime.
Why start off on that issue?
And Dean said, Well, I didn't put it up, but somebody did, so I'll be responsible for it.
It was put out by Democrats.
And then Howard Dean goes on to, yeah, why don't you get some suspicious here?
How about 20 guys?
Twenty guys being.
Howard Dean, same show.
Matthews says, what about the Genovizi case that years later, when he won the conviction and put three big guys away, including a top guy in New Jersey.
It's great.
All I'm trying to say is, you know, this guy is not the best prosecutor since sliced bread.
Look, here's the You don't you don't sense a little ethnic aspect to this, the fact he's Italian American, they nailed this number one issue against this guy is mob.
And he's weak on the mob.
You don't see that, huh?
No.
I don't see it.
I think everybody else I'll tell you what the number one is.
I see it.
Yeah, well, I didn't hear anybody on our side saying, stop it.
You need to be above the fray.
Uh uh Howard, you need let's let's and furthermore, I didn't hear any Democrats telling Howard Dean to shut up.
I didn't hear any Democrats telling Chuck Schumer to stop lying about Alito.
I didn't hear any Democrats or columnists telling Ted Kennedy to stop lying about Alito.
They tried to destroy him.
Now, listen to this.
January 9, 2006, CNN situation room with Wolf Blitzer.
This is Bill Schneider.
And in this bite, you will hear how CNN with a poll advises Democrats to turn Alito's poll numbers negative.
They said they were inclined to support the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito, 49%, just shy of a majority.
Why are they inclined to support him?
Because a majority of Americans, 52%, believe that Judge Alito's views are in the mainstream.
What would it take to convince Americans that he's too extreme?
People were asked, suppose you're convinced that after his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe v.
Wade.
Then, in that case, a majority said that they would not support his confirmation.
56% say no.
And I just checked in a poll just released by Washington Post and the ABC News poll.
Americans said if Judge Alito is confirmed, do you think he would vote to overturn Roe v.
Wade?
Only 18% of Americans right now say they think he would.
Vote to overturn.
That's a very low number.
That number might change.
That's what we're looking for during these confirmation hearings.
Of course you were, Bill, because you just gave the Democrats the direction to go.
Now, Roe versus Wade is a court case.
These guys, nobody comments on it at the hearings.
So they're gonna have to go out there.
He was trying to advise Democrats.
Look, this guy's gonna get in there if you don't, if you don't do something, and a way to kill him is to make everybody believe he's gonna overturn Roe versus Wade.
That's the role CNN played.
Their media helps them destroy Republicans.
We some reason want to appease the Bill Schneiders of the world and make them like us and not say mean things about us.
It's mystifying to me.
Once again, soda my ore is going to be confirmed.
There's no stopping it unless there's some magic thing that we don't know about that disqualify her, but I think that's already happened, and that is her racist and bigoted comment about her being a better judge than a white guy simply because she's a Latina.
That very fact alone, that richness of her life, because she's a Latina, better judge than a white guy.
She sees things better differently than a white guy.
Now you want to enshrine racism on the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a setback for civil rights.
Dr. King judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Seems all of his proponents have forgotten his number one goal.
Ambition.
Admonition.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that uh oh.
Oh, one more before we go to the break.
November of 1994, PBS to the contrary, this uh the all-female McLachlin group show.
Syndicated columnist Julian Malvo discussing Clarence Thomas.
I frankly, personally, the man is on the court.
You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do of heart disease.
And all the chicks on the show left.
I remember I watched it, I saw this show.
It was a lost cause.
Like it's still on the air, and you probably don't even know it.
But again, I'm not saying we have to emulate this, but this is who these people are.
This is what we are up against.
And the way to fight this is to not shut up.
We can be above the fray.
We can be people who use decorum.
We can be a sophisticated.
We can be enlightened.
We have the truth on our side.
We have the best interests of the country on our side.
We have the best interests of every citizen on our side.
We want the best for everybody.
And we don't look at people.
Race, sex, sex orientation, gender.
We don't group people.
We don't victimize them.
We'll be back.
Much more straight ahead.
Your phone calls.
And there's um we've got another 911 call over McDonald's.
Not in Port St. Lucy.
This is in Honolulu.
Some idiot called Now, folks, there's something going on here.
We had Port St. Lucy.
Woman called 911 a number of times because she didn't get chicken McNuggets.
Or they didn't have them when she ordered them.
This guy goes into McDonald's and he didn't get the uh orange juice that he ordered from the drive-thru.
He called 911.
There's there's a reason for this.
It's the answer's not healthy.
Anyway, brief time out.
Your phone calls are coming up.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
Actually, it was not.
I goofed up, it was not in Hawaii, it was in Aloha, Oregon.
Where the guy called 911.
Uh, for most people it's not a dilemma.
Given a choice between a day without sunshine and a day without jail time, most people will skip the orange juice and stay out of jail.
But Rabin Ralph Osman isn't most people.
The 20-year-old Aloha man had a sleepover at the Washington County jail on Memorial Day after calling 911 to complain that McDonald's left out a box of orange juice from his drive-thru order.
I think there's a picture of this guy.
The guy said it was a freedom of speech issue.
It was a freedom of speech.
He should be calling the White House.
I think they think they are calling the White House.
I think these idiots believe they're calling Obama.
Or some government agency who's going to make it right for him.
All right.
Where are we starting on the phones?
Give me the line.
I see the first one dropped off on you, sturdley.
Winston, Salem, North Carolina.
Hi, Linda.
You're on Open Line Friday.
Great to have you here.
How are you today?
Fine.
Thank you.
Um I must tell you that I have never really liked you, but um I listen to you sometimes just to get another opinion.
And I kind of agree with you on the thing with a new appointee for the Supreme Court, even though I'm a Democrat.
Yes, ma'am.
Because I I don't I don't know whether the lady of the racist or not, but people that are going to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States must have control of their tongue.
Because they represent the people of this country.
They are the defenders of the Constitution and the people of this country.
See, now that's an that's a brilliant point, Linda, and a brilliant observation.
But that's not why President Obama wants Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
He's not looking at someone to defend the Constitution.
He is constrained by it.
He wants somebody who will do his bidding there, and that is deconstruct it.
But you see, it it not to interrupt you, but it doesn't matter because the President of the United States is opposed to defend the Constitution.
That's what he says when he gets elected.
Well, um, yeah, I know.
I mean, there's there's a there's a word for what uh Sonya Sotomayor, if what she has said and how she's ruled in previous cases would do that way on the Supreme Court, then she would be denying her oath of office.
There's a word that would probably offend columnists and Republicans if I if I used it, it's liar.
So I didn't use it, okay?
Ha!
Welcome back, El Rushmo.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have...
One more thing on Judge Sotomayor here.
You know the racist uh uh thing that she said, the bigoted thing that she said, it's pretty sexy and it's uh it offers a pretty rich target.
But let's not forget the other thing.
While a judge, while a sitting judge on the second circuit court of appeals, she said it is the job of appellate courts to make policy.
That is why Obama chose her.
Our last call from North Carolina, the Democrat who doesn't like the choice because she thinks that uh Sotomayor is not going to pay attention to the Constitution, is exactly right.
You've heard Obama, we've played you the sound bites.
The Constitution doesn't do enough for him.
The Constitution is a charter of negative rights.
It lays out all the things government can't do to you, but it doesn't specify what government can do for you.
Meaning it doesn't talk about redistribution of wealth.
The Constitution is full of things the government does for us, like protect us, provide for the general welfare system.
And on and on and on.
Here's a woman who has admitted their job as a judge is to make policy.
That is just good a reason to disqualify her.
She's admitting that she is going to look for ways around the Constitution, and she says she can find them better than white people because of the rich life she's led as a Latina.
Well, you can cringe when I say it, but somehow it's no big deal when she does.
Okay.
And now back to the phones.
We always love seeing what lurks behind these blinking lights.
This is Moscow Mills, Missouri, and Rich.
Hello, sir.
Thanks for calling.
Hey, Rush, great great to get through and talk to you.
Uh been enjoying the show more so than ever with everything that's going on.
Thank you very much.
Uh the reason I'm calling is, you know, the Senator Corny's comment, uh, you know, I I understand the truth.
Uh us folks out here in flyover country, we get the truth.
We understand the truth when we hear it.
And I think that's why the mainstream media with very little truth telling is losing popularity every every time.
I'm sure you're doing pretty good by telling the truth.
I saw Dick Cheney's polls go up eight points by coming on and telling people the facts.
All we need is politicians to state the truth.
To talk to us honestly.
Now what we have is a lot of country club type, I guess, limperists.
I don't know.
I always thought Cornan was pretty strong.
Conservative.
But evidently it offends their sensibilities to talk about race racism or or if it's not racism, abortion.
You know, they want us to go away because even though it's true what we're saying, it offends them.
Senator Cornyn is um is up for re-election, I believe, this year, is he not, Mr. Sturdley to think he's up in next year, 2010.
And uh uh I think uh when one thing I must say in defense, slight defense of politicians.
Getting votes is a far different thing than acquiring an audience.
Politicians really don't think that they can survive with voters hating them.
I, of course, have proven that you can prosper when people hate you.
But I'm not a politician.
By the same token, I don't have the power they do.
So when Senator Corny sees the need, as he did on NPR yesterday to distance himself from me, uh Newt Gangrich or Tom Tancredo, I guarantee you it's a result of polling in Texas over this issue of Sotomayor and the Hispanic vote.
And the Hispanic vote is something the Republican Party is as frightened of as they are of conservative Christians.
The Republican Party desperately wants the Hispanic vote, I think, to replace conservative Christians in their coalition because they're embarrassed by them.
I want to tell you something, Rich.
I was in Texas last night.
I was in Houston.
I flew for a uh fundraiser for a member of Congress named Michael McCall.
And I met a lot of people there last night.
Louis Gomert, who's a member of Congress who's fabulous.
Senator David Vitter from New Orleans flew over for this.
Tom DeLay was there.
There were about 200 or 250 people at this fundraiser.
And I must tell you, every one of them was a conservative Republican.
wasn't a moderate in the bunch.
And I talked to them all because there were photos, sessions, and so forth and so on.
And when I made my remarks, I could see the applause.
I didn't get booed.
Nobody came up to me and said, Shut up, you're hurting the party.
It was the exact opposite.
Now you might want to call Texas flyover country, some people might, and it's hard to extrapolate from audience of 200 people.
But I will tell you that I bet you if I went to every state in the country and did a fundraiser for a Republican candidate, I could give the same.
I get the same remarks I made last night and get standing ovations.
Same thing I say on the radio each and every day.
There's nothing earth-shattering there.
But my point is that it's all of the Republicans in Washington and conservative media people in Washington...
Who have this fear of moderates and Republican voters going away in droves if the rhetoric is too strident, and they define rhetoric as too strident as simply being truthful.
Words mean things.
I mean, if you want to communicate properly, you use the right words to communicate the thought.
Someone can't do that because it's going to offend somebody, and it's going to offend Hispanics, or it's going to offend them.
We gotta we can't do this.
And I just, I want to stipulate and remind everybody again, my analysis of Judge Sotomayor is not aimed at keeping her off the court.
No way realistically that can happen.
The Republicans don't have the votes, and they're not interested in keeping her off the court.
But there is an opportunity here to tell the country who Obama is by telling the country who she is.
This reluctance that our party has to contrast itself with its enemies is dumbfounding to me.
I understand it.
I understand why.
I don't agree with it, but it nevertheless is dumbfounding.
How this is uh how this is almost like the Republican Party today and some in the Republican media are content to share power as losers.
To be in the club but be losers.
The club in Washington.
The people that elect them don't want them to be in the club as losers.
The people elect them because they want winners.
The party's not acting like it's interested in winning.
Nobody wins playing defense.
Nobody wins worrying about what everybody else thinks about you.
Nobody wins who doesn't tell them what they stand for.
And that's where we are here.
So I'm just telling the people, whenever I travel this country, and whenever I happen to make political remarks, I don't have people, boomy, I don't have people run away.
I don't have people's, you know, you need to tone this down because it's really hurting.
I only hear this from so-called conservative people on television, so-called conservative people in media.
And not all of them, but just some.
So I have become America's pinata.
I am the pass key.
You bash Rush, and the media gives you a free pass.
John Cornen can be loved by NPR.
All he got to do, bash me.
If any Republican wants to be invited on any of the Sunday shows, get an interview in the style section of Washington Post, if anybody still reads it, be profiled on one of the nightly newscasts or show up on a cable show, all they gotta do is bash Rush.
Bash America's pinata, and they get a free pass.
They're loved.
That's how easy it is.
And that's sadly what some of them seem to want.
Especially if it's re-election time.
Robert in Surprise, Arizona.
Arizona has some of the greatest names for its cities and towns in the country, like Show, Solo, Arizona.
This is surprise Arizona.
It's Robert, great to have you here.
Right.
Well, what's the Phoenix Russ?
I've been listening to you over 15 years.
Thank you.
I have a question.
How much influence do you think that staffers and lobbyists have over elected officials?
It's profound.
It is profound.
In fact, I read a piece from the uh Wall Street Journal from 2002 or 2000.
Six or five or six years ago.
And it was memos from special interest groups to staff members of senators saying, oppose this judge, and here's why.
Oppose that nomination, and here's why.
It came from the Alliance for Justice, Nayroll, uh, people for the American Way, the ACLU.
Uh this staff, particularly Senate staff, are the ones that generally write most of the questions that these people ask, the senators ask.
It's profound.
It is the prof the influence that staffers have on uh on elected officials is much.
Great indication the other day, Waxman says I don't have to read it, I just vote for it.
You believe what the scientists say, you know, the huge bill that he was a chairman on the uh committee.
You know, we had that bite, and I got I just didn't have a chance to get to it.
Maybe Cookie can can get it to me real quickly here before the hour ends.
Well, Henry Waxman, who is a co-sponsor of the Cap and Trade Environmental Bill that's going to raise everybody's taxes.
Henry Waxman, a co-sponsor with Ed Markey.
Waxman was chairing a committee hearing on it.
And somebody asked him a specific question about something in the bill, and Waxman said, You expect me to know everything in the bill?
You expect me to know everything in the bill.
I get staffed for that.
Well, I don't want to get disdracted here by these, you know, inan little questions here about what's in the bill.
Cookie will find it, we'll get it for you.
I've got to take a brief time out here.
Another obscene profit break on the EIB network.
We will be right back.
All right.
Uh John Cornyn, I got I've got to retract what I said, giving him a little slack.
He's not up for reelection in uh 2010.
He was re-elected in 08, so he's not up till uh till 2014.
He was just elected uh uh last year.
So he's he's not running for re-election any time soon.
So polling data in Texas is not the reason why he is trying to distance himself from critics of um of uh Judge Sotomayor.
Now I am told, and I'm going to have to fact check this because lately I've been misled by a whole bunch of contributors.
Well, one of my contributors the other day told me it was 40 days until Obama's birthday, and it's not.
It's like 85 or 90.
I am told that there is a reason judges wear black robes.
That's to hide them.
To hide any bias.
To essentially present the image of fairness.
Black robe hides whatever bias, uh, whatever economic circumstances, whatever there is to know about the judge is not supposed to be known because of the black robe.
In this case, if that's true, then the robe that Sonia Sotomayor will wear on the Supreme Court is transparent.
Because we have already seen who she is.
She has told us that she will make policy, she will legislate from the bench.
Here are the waxman bites.
This was May 20th.
This is nine days ago.
House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
Joe Barton from Texas and Henry Waxman have this exchange about the climate bill.
Before I asked the question in counsel, did you know that was in this bill?
You asking me?
Yes, sir.
Well, you're not.
I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill.
I know that we left it to uh we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others in the consensus that they have that there is a problem of uh global warming.
It's having an impact, and that uh we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid uh some of the consequences.
That's what I know, but I don't know the details rely on the scientists.
I don't know the details.
Uh I don't claim to know everything that's in this bill.
We left it very heavily with the scientists.
The scientists.
Global warming hoaxers wrote Cap and Trade.
Waxman doesn't know what's in it.
Badge of honor.
Don't trouble me with these things.
Now here's Waxman announcing the reading of the bill, and uh you'll you'll hear a speed reader in here as well as uh Joe Barton from Texas.
The clerk will read the bill.
Short title.
Now listen to it.
It's a short title.
The act may be cited as the Energy Production Innovation and Conservation Act.
Be table of contents.
Table of contents for the act is as follows.
Section one, short title and table of contents, title one clean energy standards, section one federal clean energy standard, title two American Energy Subtitle A, Conservation and Efficiency, Chapter 1, tapping in America's ingenuity creativity, section two and one definition, section 11 statement policy with the request.
Section 204 eligibility.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the rating of the amendment be dispensed with.
So Barton, okay, you're not gonna tell us what's in the bill.
Let's read it.
Let's find out what's in the cap and trade bill.
So Waxman goes gets a speed reader.
And nobody knows what's in the bill anyway.
Just to uh here, okay, Barton, you want to know what's in the bill, try this.
And Barton just has to give up laughing.
And so forth.
So don't know what's in the bill.
Scientists wrote it, relying very heavily on the scientists.
Jennifer in Fresno, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Great, thank you.
Well, I was calling today, I'm sure you know that uh tomorrow we're going to have a large uh gay rights march here in Fresno.
Um apparently the uh gay I actually did not know that.
That's not something I keep track of.
Well, they've decided that because uh the Central Valley voted um 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8 that we're um a valley full of bigots, and so they need to come here and change our minds.
And so they're having a big march from Selma, California, which is the.
Well, now wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
If uh uh I the way that deal with this, the the gay people should not come and march.
They're only going to offend you.
Uh the they're they're only that that that's they should just you know, you know, open a lemonade stand, ask you to come by and maybe engage you in polite conversation.
Marching, that's only going to offend you.
This is we're being told here that you don't you don't really oppose people.
You try to get along with them.
The gay people are not even following the Republican script.
I nobody is.
Well, I think that they're that it's gonna backfire for a few reasons.
And the first one is that you're right.
Uh people in Fresno don't want to hear anything people from San Francisco and Los Angeles have to say.
That's why we don't live there and we live here.
And the second reason is that the gay activists and the environmental activists are kind of related in their goals, and right now the environmentalists are destroying agriculture on the let me tell you what the objective here is.
You must be told this.
And you you may know it, may not want to admit it, you might not want to believe it, but it's true.
The purpose of this march is to intimidate you, and they're gonna keep it up until they wear you out.
Exactly.
That's what I think.
They're going to they're gonna keep it up until you find I don't I okay.
All right.
Go get married.
Just leave me alone.
That's the strategy.
That was what civil unions was about.
Yep.
We kind of got the impression that if they got that, then they'd leave us alone.
Okay, so what are you gonna do then?
Well, I personally I'm gonna ignore it.
All right, exactly right.
Everybody should.
The media won't, but everybody else in town should.
Don't let them intimidate you this way.
All right, I gotta go.
Quick timeout.
Fastest three hours in media, two of them almost in the can.
Be right back after this.
My good friend Andy McCarthy, who, were he honest, would tell you much of his brilliance comes from stealing from me, has posted a great piece here at National Review Online.
Forget whether Sotomayor qualifies as a racist.
Would she qualify as a juror?
McCarthy, who is a lawyer, said no, she she wouldn't pass the test the jurors have to pass.
It's an interesting angle to oppose.
▲
Export Selection