All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
February 1, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plan.
You're tuned to the most listened to, and there's no question about it, Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
As always, it's a great pleasure, a thrill, and a delight to be with you.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Dawn just said to me that she was a little disappointed in only one thing in the Miss America telecast, and that is she was hoping I would be on it more and the other judges to comment on what we were saying.
There was no way.
You'll never know how individual judges voted in the finals.
I don't know.
The final, we were just asked to rank out of the top seven, the final five.
Now, we didn't know who Miss America was until the final three were up there because we knew that they announced the runners up.
So they announced the top four and then Miss America.
And we knew that it was Miss Virginia when the three were standing up there.
But there are never going to be any judge comments on the contestants.
That won't happen.
We're not even allowed to speak to each other about this all week long.
And the only time we're allowed to talk about it is for a couple minutes on Saturday morning with a lot of people present.
So they've got it down path.
They really know what they're doing.
All right, Democrats quietly working to resuscitate health care overhaul.
This is in the L.A. Times.
We've had a numerous number of stories about this that we shared with you last week.
They do admit here in the L.A. Times, though, that Democrats are going to still have to overcome substantial obstacles here.
They rattled by Scott Brown's winning campaign in Massachusetts and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So don't think that they're stopping this.
I mean, and they're not going to go at it piecemeal.
They are actively plotting ways to get this done now, even still considering reconciliation.
Olympia Snow, a lot of people got panicked because Olympia Snow went and had a conversation with Dingy Harry and some of the Democrats.
Oh, no, don't tell me she's going to cave.
She wasn't caving.
What she was doing was telling them, if you go reconciliation, you're going to create a war.
You're going to start a war here.
And they don't care.
They don't care.
The fact that you don't want their health care bill means they'll want it even more.
They hold us in contempt.
Now, here's Obama's stunning admission.
Real clear politics.
Tom Bevan, B-E-V-A-N, it might be Beavin.
I don't know how he pronounces it, and I don't want to accidentally mispronounce somebody's name.
He says, there's been a remarkable amount of coverage of Obama's appearance at the House Republican retreat, but I haven't seen anybody focus on the president's rather stunning admission about the Democrats' health care legislation.
And here's what Obama said about it.
The last thing I will say, though, let me say this about health care and the healthcare debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues.
If you look at the package that we've presented and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating.
For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people that if you want to keep the health insurance you've got, that you can keep it.
You're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor and your decision making.
And I think some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
Might have.
Mr. President, it was never in there.
You were the only one that was ever saying, if you like your insurance, you can keep it.
Both the House and Senate bills specifically had ways, numerous ways, in which people would not avoid, be able to avoid losing their existing coverage and plans.
He was the only one saying it.
Now, Mr. Bevin says if we take this statement at face value, Obama is admitting that the health care bills passed by either the House or the Senate or both contained provisions which were snuck in, presumably by Democrat members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists, that would have, in fact, prevented people from keeping their current insurance and are choosing the doctor they want.
Now, this was one of those core debates on health care throughout last year.
Would President Obama, the Democrats' legislation, allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers?
Obama promised it wouldn't.
Republicans said it would.
And this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led him to characterize it as a government takeover of health care, the same characterization Obama chastised the GOP for on Friday.
So it's a bit of a shock to find out now from the president himself, no list, that one or both of the bills that passed Congress late last year contained language that would have violated this pledge.
So he knew the pledge was violated.
There was no effort to take it out.
There was no effort to take the, he says we were in the process of eliminating it.
Well, no way.
I mean, the House and Senate bills both contained, you remember, folks, if any aspect of your current health care plan changed, including if your premium went up, or if the deductible changed, or if you changed provider, that was it.
You were through, and you were going to have to go to the government option.
And by the way, the government option is as much alive today as it ever was in these backroom strategic negotiations.
And of course, the states, we had that story of the states seeking to ban mandatory health insurances, which you can go to jail for in the bill if you don't have it.
You can get fined or perhaps even go to jail.
Right now, lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
They don't want any part of this.
Audio soundbite time.
Now, this is, I guess what we've come to expect.
Here's Obama saying that he rejects grandstanding.
But this soundbite, as you will hear, this lays the groundwork for massive tax increases.
Insists he's cutting the deficit.
Just listen to this.
It speaks for itself.
But even despite that, I will provide instant analysis.
We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter.
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.
Rick Hewitt.
Who has been doing that?
This is surreal.
We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have...
Well, nobody's been doing that but you, sir, and your Democrats in Congress.
Nobody's suggesting but you all of this spending.
This is Machiavellian.
This is delusional.
How stupid does he think we are?
How dumb does he think we are?
We can't continue to spend as though he just arrived.
Is this his first day on the job?
His deficit last year is $1 trillion higher than George Bush's projected deficit.
$1 trillion higher.
It's almost three times what Bush's deficit was, and it's his.
And it's his spending and his proposed spending.
Okay, here's the whole bite.
We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money, as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation.
We can't.
In order to meet this challenge, I welcome any idea from Democrats and Republicans.
What I will not welcome, what I reject, is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off.
It's time to hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves.
It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again.
Folks, I'm having trouble not using profanity here.
This is just an out-and-out, bold-faced lie.
I said it this morning.
This has no grounding in reality.
He is just, if we're to take this seriously and connect the dots, he has just ripped himself to shreds.
He's just given us a bunch of reasons not to re-elect him.
He's just talked about how irresponsible he has been.
That's what you're doing here.
He doesn't welcome any idea from Republicans.
What I will not welcome is the same old grandstanding.
Grandstanding?
He is the only one who grandstands.
Republicans can't get enough coverage to grandstand.
When's the last time you saw a Republican get any meaningful coverage on TV to grandstand or look like an idiot?
Either one.
You don't see it.
Time to hold Washington to the same standards that families and businesses hold themselves.
It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, live as though he just took office today.
He is ripping his own administration and policies to shreds, trying to make you think that all of this is the result of George W. Bush.
We'll be right back.
Hi, how are you?
We're back.
And we're back on the ditto cam since you're back at the Southern Command, our high-definition ditto cam in full sway using Flash at rushlimbaugh.com.
All right, to the phones.
We're going to start in Howell, Michigan.
This is Terry, and it's great to have you here.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Hey, there's a couple things that I told Beau, and we've got to do both.
Number one, I don't think the vast majority of people understand the million, the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion.
They hear it, and it's just a bunch of aliens.
So if I, for instance, were to say, oh, no, I've spent $1,000.
What am I going to do?
I've got to cut back.
I'll cut back by $1.
See, the difference?
I mean, from a trillion to a billion is like $1,000 to $1.
And I don't think most people understand when we talk about a trillion-dollar deficit or a billion-dollar deficit.
It all sounds the same.
Actually, I understand your point here, but when I look at polls and when I look at the crosstabs in the polls, I think people get it.
I think one of the primary reasons he's below 50% is because where people might not understand trillion, billion, whatever, they do understand we don't have it and that their kids and grandkids are going to be paying for it as well as themselves and that their standard of living is going to be hitting downward very fast.
People do understand.
They know this is irresponsible.
They know we don't have the money.
All these bailouts and all of this stimulus money with no results from it, with no results, zero stimulus money to recreate jobs and grow the economy.
It isn't happening.
So I think people clearly get this.
By the way, you said million, billion, trillion.
There's a term that we're going to have to use.
They're going to have to start popularizing here because it's going to be a factor very soon.
What is the, you've got a million, then a billion, then a trillion.
What's the next progress?
What's the next term?
I don't know, gazillion?
Quadrillion.
Quadrillion, you're right.
Quadrillion.
And we're soon being, we're going to be forced into using that term as a legitimate way to explain.
In fact, I might start using it now just to try to make the point that you want me to make.
What's quadrillion?
Oh, it's more than a trillion.
Right, that's right.
Well, that brings me to my other thing.
Now, this is a bigger thing.
Now, if you look at, you talk and you've got the microphone, and so you can explain this.
And I think you need to explain it in terms that are day-to-day reality for people.
What does the deficit, what does a huge deficit mean to me?
Frankly, a year ago, milk cost the same, eggs cost the same, my clothes cost the same, my mortgage is the same.
Everything's the same for me.
I don't feel a difference, and yet I know intellectually that the deficit is a terrible thing and that it's going to get worse.
But I think people need to be told how it's going to affect them day to day because we don't feel any different now than we did a year ago.
And yet the deficit's terrible.
Have you figured out why it matters on your own?
I have figured out how it's going to affect my children, like we've talked about.
I've figured out how the dollar is not worth as much.
But from a day-to-day standpoint, my life hasn't changed.
And it will.
I know it will.
Do you want it?
And I think it's important for people to understand that.
Your life has changed.
Those things and prices are going up.
If you have kids, it's tougher for them to get a job.
If your husband's out of work, he's going to have a much tougher time finding a job.
And the deficit is part and parcel.
One of the best things you can explain to people about the deficit is for the government, a deficit is spending money you don't have.
They have to borrow it from someplace.
And they borrow money that takes it out of the private sector.
There's less money in the private sector to invest in the expansion of business or the creation of new ones to hire people because the government's hoarding all the money, spending money that they don't yet have, spending money that they're printing.
Because there aren't countries like China and others are not totally financing it.
They still have to borrow it from various places that you and I would.
A lot of the countries they are borrowing from are countries that don't like us, and that's a terrible thing.
That's exactly right, making us vulnerable to them.
Okay, well, I'll work on that.
Deficits and national debt, sometimes people get confused on the two terms, but overall, I think a greater number than ever is fully aware that something major is not right.
If they weren't, Obama would be sailing through here because people love, we were told people love government spending.
In fact, listen to this.
Listen, David Brooks, yesterday on Meet the Press, he's a moderate Republican.
And this question's two pages long.
Basically, he's talking about what people want.
And this is the core argument now in the Republican Party.
Listen to this.
Yeah, the only thing I'd caution the Republicans about is distrust of government is not anti-government.
People want government to work.
They just don't believe in it.
So I think Republicans are doing what Democrats have done and what Republicans have done before, which is overreading the ideological mandate.
They think the people distrust government, therefore they want big slashing.
They can get away with just saying we want big tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
We can go back to that old song.
That's not true.
So here's David Brooks.
Basically, the era of Reagan is over.
People still want big government.
They want big government that works.
This is why he's got an audience of 20.
This is absurd.
This is obstinate.
His ideas have been rejected, and he just can't believe it.
So you're too stupid.
Understand his brilliance.
He's going to stick with it.
Here's Don and Lake Run Konkam of New York.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Megadittos, Rush.
Great to talk to you again.
Thank you, sir.
And it was great to see you this week.
And even if it was a brief on the Miss America pageant.
Yes.
I can't think of a better diversion from politics than that, huh?
Somebody had to do it.
And everybody has to be somewhere.
Rush, I have a question for you.
What I saw, and I'm sure America saw, was 53 attractive women with incredible talent on loan from God.
And each one was doing different performances, answering different questions.
And each one met, in my opinion, your prerequisites.
You had told the audience that you were looking for women that had poise, confidence, articulation, and she must like herself.
Now, from my viewpoint, and I'm sure America's viewpoint, I saw that in every single one of those women.
So how hard was judging that pageant?
Wasn't that one of the hardest professional decisions you ever had to make?
Some criteria, yes.
Judging talent for me was the toughest.
But the poise, articulation, authenticity, genuine, that wasn't hard at all.
Don't forget, we spent 10 minutes with each of them in interviews on Monday and Tuesday.
You saw them answer one question.
I don't want to mention names, but there was one of the semifinalists had a horrible answer Saturday night.
Others, if they seemed to me that they had memorized an answer, if they were too sing-songy in what they were saying, I didn't judge them on whether their opinion agreed with mine.
I judged them on whether they really believed it or whether I thought they were saying something just to be approved and just to be liked by a certain group of people.
So it was the time you go through 53 of them to find differentiations between all 53 and say, okay, this one was the best.
That's not how we did it, though.
We didn't rank them one through 53.
We had a score system and each one was competing against herself.
We don't measure them against each other.
Because I know Rush not picking a status candidate for president, that's easy.
But Miss America is hard.
Well, they all are fine women.
And these are the kind of women I think need to be held up as role models.
I said this earlier in the program.
One of the problems is that they are, for the most part, these are very wholesome women.
And unfortunately, wholesome in our society today in our pop culture in a way equals boring and not interesting and fuddy-dutty and old-fashioned.
And frankly, if I had a daughter, I would much prefer that she admire and look up to one of these women than some of the choices they have out there in the pop culture.
But it was a challenging thing, but we had great instructions.
Rick Brinkley was the guy who gave us instruction.
He couldn't have done it without him.
Here, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Your guiding light, Rushlin Boy and the EIB Network.
From the UK Times, it's amazing the news that you get in the UK versus news that you never get.
In fact, I've got a story here in the stack, a British newspaper on how just livid people are in Chicago at Obama.
You would never, you would never get that story here.
Anyway, UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claims.
So now we have the bogus Himalayan glacier melt claim.
Now we have the bogus rainforest claim.
The startling report by the United Nations Climate Watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners, i.e., environmentalist activists, who had little scientific expertise.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savannah grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists.
They had based their research on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall, but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activities such as logging and burning.
This weekend, the World Wildlife Fund said that it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.
This is now the third time in as many weeks that serious doubts have been raised over the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
Now, this weekend, Rajenda Pachari, a chairman of the IPC, was fighting to keep his gig after a barrage of criticism.
So, this is the third thing involving the IPCC.
We have the fraudulent readings and left-out information to hide the decline from the East Anglia University Climate Center, the Hadley Climate Center, where bogus emails indicate the whole thing was fabricated.
So, now there is all the evidence in the world now, certainly more than anyone had on, say, Scooter Libby, that this is a fake, a hoax, a sham, a deception, a fraud, and a swindle.
And, you know, a lot of people were pulled into this mess with eyes wide shut, but not me.
I never for a moment believed any of this.
Going back to 1984, as I've told you, when I first heard of this, you know, I heard about global cooling in 1979, and all of a sudden, global warming is going to wipe us out in 20 years and so forth.
I never bought any of it for a host of reasons, but among them, A, I believe in God, and I just, what these people were saying does not jibe with my idea of God and creation.
But number two, they're liberals.
They're liberals, and I understand liberals, and I know that they use phony issues to accomplish their real objective, which is to take away freedom and liberty from people to raise taxes on them to redistribute wealth.
This was clear to me.
I remember for the first 15 years talking about this.
People thought I was an idiot.
Just as recently as two years ago, I'd be talking to parents who were forced to watch Al Gore's movie.
And they bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
They bought it.
They thought, oh, my, we got to do some polar bears are dying.
They saw these doctored pictures of a polar bear on an ice flow, thinking it was a glacier that was about to melt and the poor polar bear was going to drown.
I said, no, no, no, no.
They can swim 60 miles.
These things are just out there frolicking and playing.
That's what they do.
They hang around on ice.
No, no, no, no.
Al Gore, now Bin Laden last Friday comes out, starts echoing everything Al Gore said.
Give Osama Nobel Peace Prize.
How does Al Gore feel?
How do all these people feel when the number one worldwide terrorist agrees with them and blames the United States to boot?
I mean, everything Gore says, everything Obama says, Osama said it on Friday or Thursday in his tape.
Now, a lot of these people that I spoke to who bought hookline and sinker into Gore's movie have finally awakened.
But that's because they're exposed to me frequently.
I mean, this whole thing is getting close to a Saturday Night Live skit, folks.
No massive coverage of this in the United States.
The state-controlled media is not reporting it.
Obama in his State of the Union mess, even though we have our skeptics, climate science is indisputable, blah, blah, blah.
And I sit there.
I can't react without a string of profanities.
Guy cannot tell the truth.
He's incapable of telling the truth.
Meanwhile, they're all over the drive-bys, the Washington Post, making things up and continuing to misrepresent what happened to James O'Keefe and what he was doing in Landry's office.
He put out a statement and they still accuse him of bugging things and so forth, which is not what he was doing.
As I thought, he was in there trying to document that in Landry's office, they had done something with the phones so that constituents could not call and get through to tell her they didn't want any part of health care and they didn't like the Louisiana purchase.
And she said, well, we're not getting any phone calls.
Our phone lines are jammed.
O'Keefe said, this is crazy.
He wanted to go in and find out what they'd done.
And he videotaped with a cell phone, which is not a crime, although Washington Post tried to say it is.
So here you have incontrovertible evidence that the UN's IPC, that's another thing.
When the UN starts telling me that the United States are guilty, I don't believe it.
I know it's political.
But, you know, everybody wants to matter.
One thing I've learned about human nature is that everybody, no matter how insignificant they think they are, they want to matter.
And if these libs can come along and make them feel guilty over the fact that they are destroying the planet or contributing to it, but there's a way to fix it, get rid of your guilt, i.e. start buying junko little cars that don't make a hell's worth of difference to the environment.
Sit there and agree to have your taxes raised.
Elect Democrats who really care about this, that's what they do.
And people want to matter.
And what better way to matter than to think of yourself in the privacy of your own home thinking you're saving the earth?
And then, even better for the environmentalist wackos, if these people become proselytizers, if they then start preaching it to other people and making other people feel guilty for driving an SUV.
And so they then become evangelists of all this.
And we saw it happen.
And then when you pile on the fact they tell all this to little kids in school, you know how kids love animals, and you know how we tend to humanize animals throughout our culture.
I mean, cartoons, animals talk and so forth, Lion King, this sort of thing.
Then you couple that with we're destroying the animals and the polar bears.
These little kids start driving their parents crazy.
And the parents, oh, my kid's worried about this.
They don't want to be bugged by it anyway.
But we're dealing with a total hoax.
We're dealing with a 100% fraud, a swindle, pure and simple.
There ought not be any more serious discussion about man-made global warming because the evidence is clear that the primary evidence that they use has been made up.
A couple of green activists basing research on something they read in science to write a paper saying that slight temperature change will wipe out the rainforest and the UN accepts it.
And when they accepted the Himalayan glaciers melting, well, yeah, we knew that was not right, but we wanted to spur world leaders into action.
We wanted world leaders to raise taxes and roll back people's lifestyles.
And the lesson here, folks, is there's no difference in this guy running the UN IPCC than Barack Obama.
There's no difference in the hoaxers at East Anglia University than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
There is no difference between these clowns that made up the glacier melting in the Himalayas than John Kerry.
I don't care where you find these liberals.
They are identical.
There are characteristics that are in common with all of them.
And at the top of the list is they are statists.
They are threatened by individual liberty and freedom.
And they believe in the vast, vast growth of government.
The hope for this country, the hope for this country resides in our ability to convince a majority of people of the truth of liberals, to show them and to persuade them that whenever you see a liberal run the other way, if you don't like what's happening to the country now, you will never like what's happening to the country now if a Democrat's in power.
Never.
That's, I think, our objective.
To go about this policy by policy by policy and do that, but we've been doing that for years.
We've got to turn this into ideological debate.
That's why Obama out there said, I'm not an ideologue.
I'm not.
I'm not.
I'm not an ideologue.
Yes.
He is first, second, third, and fourth an ideologue.
Back after this, my friend.
Is the United States a banana republic?
If you listen to these next two soundbites, I don't think you can conclude anything else.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, the smartest, brightest press secretary we're told we've ever had, was on State of the Union yesterday on CNN.
John King said this.
Republicans and a growing number of Democrats in Congress say, number one, we don't want these terrorists tried on American soil.
And a lot of those lawmakers also say, number two, that this should be done in the military justice system, not in the federal court system.
What's plan B if you need one?
Well, let me tell you what plan A is for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker.
In a federal court, he will be in a military case.
He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans.
Okay.
That kind of stuff doesn't happen in the United States of America.
You don't say, we're going to try this guy, we're going to execute this guy, and he's going to meet his maker.
Prosecutors can do it, but Gibbs is not the prosecutor.
Gibbs works for the president.
Robert Gibbs has just tried and convicted and executed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before the trial.
Here's the next bite where Gibbs won't commit to a civilian trial.
The Attorney General believes that the best place to do this is in an American courtroom.
Let me try one more time.
No way in New York City.
And are you sure it will be in a federal courtroom, or is it a possibility because of this controversy, you may go back to the military court?
I will tell you this, John.
We are talking with the authorities in New York.
We understand their logistical concerns and their security concerns that are involved.
We'll work with them and come to a solution that we think will bring about justice for those that lost loved ones on such a horrific day at 9-11.
And I think, again, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be executed for the crimes that he committed.
Hmm.
Now, a couple comments here.
I got a note speaking of the people that lost loved ones on 9-11.
I have a friend who lost a son.
Sent me an email yesterday, actually on Saturday.
He said, Obama, do I understand this right, Rush?
Obama's looking for $200 million per year to provide security for these blank blankers who killed my son and many others?
Well, where was our security when those planes were in the air for 45 minutes, headed directly off course to New York City?
What are these cold-blooded liberals thinking?
$200 million to provide security for these reckless shreds of human debris?
Let me tell you the worst part of this, something you may not have considered.
And this is going to infuriate some of you.
If this case is actually tried in a civilian court, this is now the fourth or fifth time the administration has already pronounced the guilt and the penalty.
And if this does take place in a civilian court with American rules of justice, this case gets thrown out the first day.
And if you are Eric Holder, and if you are Barack Obama, and you want these defendants to get off scot-free, this is the way you do it.
Somebody in the legal profession wants to disagree with me here.
Somebody who's very well versed in the U.S. civil court system wants to tell me I'm wrong here.
And don't tell me no judge is going to do this.
No judge wants it on his record that he released these guys.
Wait a minute.
The U.S. civil justice and civil justice system.
If you go out, this is tainting the jury.
The president of the United States has said this and his press secretary on national TV.
And Gibbs made it a point to say twice, I think again, Muhammad will be executed for the crimes he committed.
You might say, well, yeah, but he's confessed.
Well, no, he's going to pull the confession back now because he said he wasn't given his Miranda rights.
We're talking about U.S. civil trial here.
Now, if there's a trial in a military court of justice, much less chance that this case gets thrown out because of this, because they have different rules.
But in the U.S. civil court system, U.S. criminal court system, this is the kind of thing that gets cases thrown out.
Well, Michael Barone has an interesting piece.
I read it in the New York Post, and he said, who are we trying to impress with all this?
Who are we trying to impress closing Guantanamo Bay?
Who are we trying to impress with this trial?
Who around the world are we trying to impress?
It's a great question.
We're doing it to impress somebody.
Barone says, if we are doing this to impress radical Islamists, it ain't working.
And the Christmas Day fruit of kaboom bomber proves it.
And with Obama, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we are doing this to try to impress radical Islamists and the European left to show that America's got its values back and so forth.
Well, I'm haunted by this specter of this case getting thrown out in U.S. civil court.
I need somebody in the legal community call and tell me where I'm getting that wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is this simple.
You cannot, you cannot bestow constitutional rights on these terrorists without bestowing the presumption of innocence.
I mean, that's the American system.
But the White House seems to want one without allowing the other.
Civil constitutional rights, but with no presumption of innocence.
And it's highly contradictory.
▲
Export Selection