All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
June 28, 2010, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, everybody jumping up and down for joy over the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling today.
And perhaps rightly so.
But the fact that it's a five-to-four vote.
If this court were actually following the Constitution, that gun vote should have been nine to nothing.
It should have been unanimous.
That's a no-brainer.
But even the Bill of Rights is up for grabs with this crowd on the left.
Folks, we are hanging by a thread.
We are hanging by a very thin thread.
Rush Limbaugh here.
Great to have you back after a wonderful weekend.
I hope you had telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
I want to get into the guts of this gun ruling today because there's some fascinating stuff in the ruling.
Alito wrote the majority opinion.
There were concurrences by Justice Thomas, which is a fascinating one, by the way, as well as uh Antonin's Scalia.
Five to four vote.
Really, I remember when this case was brought, a lot of people said, What do you mean the Second Amendment might not apply to the states?
How can that be?
Everybody assumed that the Bill of Rights applied to individuals everywhere.
That's what this case was about, the Chicago gun case.
And it is uh it is a fascinating look here because the Supreme Court in this ruling not only confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, but it uses discrimination and abuses against blacks after the Civil War to make the point.
I mean, the left is gonna have a conniption fit once they read this ruling, because the justification in part for the ruling is that uh freed slaves would not be free were they denied the right to keep and bear arms.
And so there were several rulings demanding that in addition to their newfound freedom, they also be granted access to amendment two and amendment number fourteen.
It's an amazing case when you look at this, because the the conservative position, according in order to be free, the Constitution must be interpreted as to what it says, and it must apply to everybody.
The United States Constitution is the single greatest document defining and attesting freedom that has ever been written.
Um Magna Carta, a good predecessor, but the U.S. Constitution is irreplaceable.
The Second and Fourteenth Amendments prevented recently freed slaves from remaining de facto slaves forever.
The second and fourteenth amendments, if you if if if they were denied, for example, recently freed slaves denied the right to keep and bear arms, they still totally were not free.
That's what this court has said today.
And yet there were four justices who disagreed with this.
There were four justices who disagreed with the notion that the Second Amendment says what it says and means what it means.
Now, Robert Byrd passed away last night, and of course, if you listen to the uh the state controlled media, he had a brief flirtation with the uh with the Cooks Ku Klux Klan.
He was a he was an exalted Cyclops.
That was his title.
I don't know what exalted Cyclops means.
Cyclops was a one-eyed monster when I was growing up.
But the he says he he discovered his leadership capabilities while there uh with the Klan, and he spent the rest of his life apologizing at trying to make amends for being uh uh a member of the of the Klan.
But I wonder, I wonder what a young Robert Byrd would have said about the Supreme Court ruling today.
A young Robert Burr, what would he have said?
That uh what would his reaction have been in the court decision today had come when he was a young man, that recently freed slaves to be free must have access to amendment two.
The right to peep and bear arms was necessary to fully break the bonds of slavery.
That has been affirmed before, and it is used as a major justification for the ruling today.
Clarence Thomas, Justice Thomas, on pages 42 to 46, gives a really necessary history lesson that everyone should read.
I I I don't have time to read 42 to 46, and that's just those are just four pages of his ruling.
But it is very informative and uh it's a great history lesson.
Everybody who cares about how free men are kept free needs to read this ruling.
It's about he documents how blacks were almost denied their right to keep and bear arms and thus subjected to less than full citizenship and left defenseless against those that sought to continue to control them even after the days of slavery.
As I say, the U.S. Constitution is the uh greatest legal document of freedom ever written.
It puts teeth into individual and human rights.
The right to bear arms has a fascinating history.
The left has been doing everything it can to revise and to rewrite that history and to say that it doesn't mean what it says.
And this is just gonna, well, they won't admit it, but I mean it's gonna blow them out of the water.
The right to bear arms, the fascinating history that accompanies it, and an important role in the freeing of black Americans from discrimination and de facto bondage and slavery, the second amendment was a key element to that reaffirmed today.
Starting on page 26 of the majority opinion, the case of McDonald versus Chicago.
The court supports its conclusion that the right to bear arms applies to states as well as individuals in a manner that will drive liberals nuts.
They demonstrate how vital the Second Amendment was to recently freed slaves.
Page 26.
The most explicit evidence of Congress's aim appears in 14 of the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that the right to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty,
personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of a state, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms shall be secured to and enjoyed by all citizens without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery.
The Supreme Court, that is from page 26 of the ruling today, and in order to affirm their notion that the Second Amendment applies to everybody, not just areas of the federal government, the Bill of Rights, they cite post-slavery and the right of former slaves to have guns.
I cannot wait for the civil rights coalitions to get hold of this and read it.
I can't wait to see how they try to tear this apart.
I'm still struck.
Four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court voted as though the Second Amendment didn't exist.
Or as though they thought the Second Amendment was wrong, or they think.
Section 14 of this ruling thus explicitly guaranteed that all citizens black and white would have the constitutional right to bear arms.
So we I guess we could say constitutional um uh decision here, conservative court, five to four, has used the illegal demon discrimination against blacks as proof of the value and intent of the Second Amendment.
I mean, this is a glory glory, hallelujah day.
What are what Reverend Wright would say about he's back on the war path?
Wonder what the uh the Justice Brothers would have to say about this.
And the liberals, if they weren't hypocrites, ought to be cheering this reasoning and this decision.
Disarming blacks post-slavery was key to preventing them from ever becoming free.
And that was their the point is the attempt was made even after slavery was declared illegal and it was ended, after the Civil War, they still tried to keep blacks from getting guns.
And everybody back then knew, and that was reaffirmed today that well, you're not going to really be free, and you're really not going to be an American if you're denied the right to keep and bear arms simply because of your race.
Of all the ways, of all the ways this court could have affirmed their decision to choose this, and Justice Thomas's opinion on this, as I say, is a is a is a genuine momentous history lesson.
What liberal can argue with this?
Here's Pierce Page in a Chicago case, No less.
In a Chicago case.
Now here's here's uh page 28, the court's opinion.
In debating the 14th Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.
Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three indispensable safeguards of liberty under our form of government.
This is the 39th Congressional Globe 1182.
One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms.
Every man should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.
And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open, and the and this is other slavery, slave, uh freed man is a new free slave.
If the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world where his wretchedness will remain forever complete.
That's in today's ruling.
And that is again from uh uh the Samuel Pomeroy from the uh 39th Congress.
Well, okay.
In debating the 14th Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as fundamental right, and this is I'm reading directly from page 28 of the ruling here.
In debating the 14th Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.
Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three indispensable safeguards of liberty under our form of government.
One of these he said was the right to keep and bear arms.
Here's his quote, Samuel Pomeroy, Senator.
Every man should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead, meaning his house.
If the cabin door of the freedom, if the front door of the newly freed slave is broken open, somebody storms in, and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as we're known to slavery, as in a lynching.
Then should a well-loaded musket, meaning a fully loaded shotgun, be in the hand of the freed slave, to send the polluted wretch, i.e., the intruder, to another world, i.e., hell, where his wretchedness will remain forever complete.
That is quoted page 28 in the ruling of the Supreme Court today.
Page 29.
Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the 14th Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental.
In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, newly freed slaves, freedmen, by the way, one word, it's an actual term used back then.
Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right, quote, disarm a com disarm a community, and you rob them of the means of defending life.
Take away their weapons of defense, you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.
The 14th Amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.
And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South.
Page 26, or page 28, 2029 of the Supreme Court ruling today.
So the Supreme Court not only confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, but it used or uses discrimination and abuses against blacks post-Civil War, newly freed slaves, To make their point.
I hope somebody asks the Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, about this today.
Or at some point, her confirmation hearings, otherwise known as the rubber stamp committee, uh gets underway in about 11 minutes.
I got to take a brief time out, folks, but it is a glory glory, hallelujah day.
The only downside is that there were four Supreme Court justices that voted against this.
That voted against the Second Amendment.
We are hanging by a threat here.
if the Constitution mattered to the left, and these four justices on the left may as well epitomize the rest of the left in this country and around the world.
According to them, the Constitution is wrong.
This doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in there.
And if they had their way, it wouldn't be.
Five to four.
That's how close we are.
Back after this.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh kicking off a brand new awake of broadcast excellence a further history lesson on freed slaves and the second amendment.
The effort to give newly freed slaves guns, the effort to allow them to keep and bear arms, was to protect them from being lynched for voting for Republicans.
The uh newly freed slaves knew who it was who had freed them.
It was Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party.
They also knew who it was that sought to deny them their newly found freedom, and that was the Democrat Party.
And the Democrat Party had a terrorist organization supporting them at that time, known as the Ku Klux Klan.
The KKK was always made up of a bunch of Democrats.
And the Democrat Party, even as recently in the 1950s, early 60s, was opposed to civil rights.
So the entire effort to give newly freed slaves guns, the right to keep them bear arms, was to protect them, allow them to protect themselves from being lynched for voting Republican.
So in a way you can see things really haven't changed all that much.
Don't vote Democrat and you are facing certain consequences.
Here's page 47 of the court's opinion, Justice Thomas writing...
As Feder Frederick Douglass explained, the legislatures of the South can take from him the right to keep and bear arms as they can, they would not allow a Negro to walk with a cane where I came from.
They would not allow five of them to assemble together.
In what new skin will the old snake come forth?
An address delivered in New York, May 10th, 1865, reprinted the Frederick Douglass papers.
Douglas explained that a black man has never had the right to either keep or bear arms.
Justice Thomas reciting all this to affirm the uh the court's ruling in all of this.
Just that you'll probably, folks, not to not uh well, you'll probably be hearing this take by the middle of the week.
Uh the original take on this decision uh will be along predictable media liberal lines.
Um they'll they'll talk about oh, it's close, it's five to four, and the court remanded it back to uh uh lower courts in certain instances where maybe with a few different adjustments, uh uh gun ownership could be uh denied, and and they'll look down the road, what do we have to do in order to reverse this stupid ruling and turn the 5-4 ruling into a 5-4 ruling for us?
That's how they're gonna take it.
That's how they'll look at it in the next couple of days.
Look for them, they'll know what happened.
Look for them to totally ignore.
Will Obama land base the court?
I hope he does.
Obama doesn't read anything he talks about.
He probably won't read this ruling.
That's why I hope he does land base the court on this.
Would that not be great?
Would that not be great?
Uh it I mean, he has already lambasted the Supreme Court in the last State of the Union show.
Maybe he'll do it in the next one coming up about this.
You know, I've I've uh I've worked run into uh a lot of liberals lately, starting at my wedding.
Yes, there were some liberals, they were spouses of invited guests at the wedding and reception, and I was struck by how unhappy they are.
I was struck by how cynical.
I mean, I walked up to them, I said, Hi, such and such.
I'm really glad you're here.
So good to see you.
Well, I was drugged here by my husband or wife.
And then later on in the evening, you know, you I think one of them said to me, I think you've gone off the rails about ten years ago, but I still nevertheless like seeing a happy man.
Nobody was talking politics.
They had to bring it in.
Why are they unhappy?
I have you run into a liberal lately that's happy.
You haven't, and then of course, this G8, this G twenty thing, it wasn't it, it was the G whiz.
The People all lined up against Obama.
Uh Obama wants to Kenya spending through the roof, and these guys saying, no, no, no, we've tried it your way for 30 years.
It doesn't work.
And that's the point.
After a year and a half, we're supposed to be in utopia now.
All this spending, all these new ways to create jobs with stimulus.
All poor people in homes.
Everybody having a job.
It isn't working, is it?
And they got supermajorities in the House close to in the Senate they used to have.
And it isn't working.
Every item of their utopian agenda is falling apart right in front of them on their watch.
That's why they're miserable.
And you're listening to the Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the most listened to radio talk show in the country as a reason for that.
800 282-2882 is a telephone number.
So essentially, the second amendment of the Constitution was voted on today.
And it passed 5-4.
Four members of the United States Supreme Court wanted the Second Amendment essentially repealed.
I can think of no more powerful way to put this.
What happened today?
The Second Amendment voted on and it passed 5-4.
after having been ratified centuries ago.
Supreme Court justices vote on the Constitution.
They determine whether something's constitutional or not.
The Second Amendment got voted on today, and it squeaked by 5-4.
Now anybody, the Kagan hearing is just now got it away with Senator Pat Leakey Leahy with his opening statement here.
We won't hear from Kegan till tomorrow, because every one of these blowhards is going to have their opening statement on the committee.
But anybody, because Elena Kagan has no judicial record, she is a blank slate on purpose.
She is Barack Obama.
That's why she has been appointed.
Anybody who wants Elena Kagan to vote on the Constitution wants the Constitution repealed.
I want to see, I want somebody to point out for me where Ms. Kagan has written favorably on any specific language of the Constitution.
I want to, I want to see speeches, opinions, articles, anything where she praises the actual language of that document.
I know that she has said that the Bork hearings are the model.
She has also said that when uh there's not much of a record of a prospective nominee that the committee needs to dig really deep.
Well, let's see if they do.
Barack Obama is appointing people to the Supreme Court to vote down the Constitution.
They don't want to just amend it.
They don't want to go to the trouble of amending it.
The short circuit way is to get enough of Obama's people on the court and throughout the federal judiciary, so they can simply repeal it by fiat, by virtue of their rulings.
The second amendment.
Imagine if it was the First Amendment free speech.
Imagine if I were to tell you the first amendment was voted on today and it passed 5-4.
The second amendment was voted on today and it passed 5-4.
both.
Now, this ruling today talks about how blacks having been frayed, freed as slaves, still faced lynchings, and that's why, and they were voting Republican, and that's why they were given the right to keep and bear arms.
Lest we forget this very committee, some years ago, tried to give Justice Thomas himself a high-tech lynching For being a Republican.
My how things have not changed in the Democrat Party.
They tried to give him a high-tech lynching simply because he was a Republican.
And so today, Justice Thomas, in his opinion, affirms the second amendment on the basis of freed slaves.
So a question, will Obama sick his Justice Department, Eric Holder, on New York City and the rest of the cities and states where guns are effectively banned in defiance of the Constitution and today's ruling, because that's what today's ruling means.
Remember, this all started in DC.
And it moved on to this McDonald case in Chicago.
So now you've got gun bans in New York City and a lot of cities and a lot of states are now in defiance of the Constitution.
The act that effectively bans guns in New York City is called a Sullivan Act.
It was pushed through by one of the most corrupt politicians to ever hold sway in New York City.
His name was Timothy Sullivan, who was part of the uh the Tammany Hall gang who ran New York.
And during the late 19th and 20th, early 20th century, Sullivan controlled much of the city's criminal activities between 14th Street and the Battery in New York City.
He is credited, Tim Sullivan, as being one of the earliest ward representative to use his position to enable the activities of criminal street gangs.
Now the Sullivan Act is a state law that required a permit to carrier on a concealed weapon, which eventually became law on May 29, 1911.
However, with many residents unable to afford the $3 registration fee issued by the corrupt New York police department, and guaranteed his bodyguards could be legally armed while using the law against their political opponents.
Now, for whatever, this Sullivan guy was in the advanced stages of the clap, syphilis, in 1911, when the Sullivan Act was passed, he was judged mentally incompetent, finally committed to a sanitarium in 1912.
According to the incompetency hearing, Sullivan elicited paranoid delusions, believed he was being spied upon, his food was being poisoned.
This is the man responsible for the current gun banks.
So that's just a little history on all of this.
But it is a glory glory hallelujah kind of day.
George Will had a piece over the weekend, more questions for nominee Elena Kagan.
And I'd love to see her answer just one of these.
George Will writes in the Washington Post, pursuant to Elena Kagan's expressed enthusiasm for confirmation hearings that feature intellectual snap crackle and pop, here are some questions the Judiciary Committee can elate her by asking.
Regarding campaign finance reforms, if allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem?
Let me translate that for you.
McCain Feingold.
If McCain Feingold and the political class, the elected political class, if allowing them to write laws regulating who can say what, when and where, and how much they can spend on speech about political issues, what's the problem?
The problem is precisely that.
The political class is writing laws excluding anybody not in their club.
If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?
If the problem is the appearance of corruption, how do you square the First Amendment with Congress restricting speech to regulate how things appear to unspecified people?
Some persons argue that our nation has a living constitution.
The court has spoken of the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of maturing society.
But Justice Scalia, speaking against changeability, stressing the whole anti-evolutionary purpose of a constitution, says its whole purpose is to prevent change, To embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away.
A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that evolving standards of decency always mark progress, and that society is always mature as opposed to not.
Is he wrong?
Now, this is a great question, but what Scalia means here, you know, the left talks about evolving standards and as people mature.
What he's really referring to is morality being ripped to shreds.
The whole notion of evolving standards of decency, as in defining decency, defense downward, uh, is always progress.
And uh society matures when it decides that giving condoms to fifth graders, which is a story in the stack today, is progress.
George will wants to know if Elena Kagan is going to wrong here.
The Ninth Amendment says the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 14th Amendment says no state may abridge the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens.
How should the court determine what are the retained rights and the privileges or immunities?
I would love to hear her answer that.
Anyway, there are a bunch more of these, but it's it's going to be fascinating.
It's a rubber stamp here, what's going on.
The Republican Jeff Sessions is uh is talking about, well, you know, we might filibuster, we're going to hold that open uh as a as a possibility.
And I I believe sessions, and I believe that he would like to do it.
Uh if if uh situation warrants, and it probably will this woman's no more qualified to be on the Supreme Court, folks, than I am.
She's there as a as a sponge.
She is a rubber stamp for Barack Obama.
It is essentially putting a czar on the on the Supreme Court.
Uh, before we go to the break, audio sound by number 24.
Last Friday, the Portland, Oregon Police Department released audio portions of a police interview with that massage therapist, January 8, 2009, regarding an alleged unwanted sexual assault by the former vice president Al Gore.
Here is a portion of the massage therapist's remarks.
I squirmed to try and get out of his grasp, telling him to stop down several times, and I finally told him instead you're being a crazy sex poodle, hoping that he'd realize how weird he was being, yet he persisted.
He was much stronger than me.
It was completely unnerving.
And I realized that resistance was making him giggle and pursue more strongly.
Aha.
So a crazed sex poodle.
I remain skeptical of this because I I I've I never have known a piece of wood to be massage or massage a bull.
But nevertheless, let's let's take the massage therapist, because remember, it's not the nature of the evidence, according to liberals, it is the seriousness of the charge.
And this is a very serious charge.
A former vice president was a sex poodle.
He was pursuing the massage therapist.
So, since we're talking about questions for Elena Kagan, I would have a question for President Clinton.
President Clinton, are you worried that the rumors about Al Gore and the massage therapist and being a uh a sex poodle could bring discredit to your presidency?
Are you concerned, Mr. Clinton, that this Al Gore massage therapist story could stain your reputation?
One of the reasons that we don't know anything about Elena Kagan is that she has almost never written anything.
Which sort of asks the question how in the world does somebody get a job as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School without publishing anything prior to getting the job.
How did Ms. Kagan get to be Dean of Harvard Law School without publishing anything?
Well, we know the answer to this.
I mean, there's a this it's a little click or a big click.
She interviews well, uh, reminds some people of uh Blue Costello, and I may have a sentimental attachment there, who's on first.
Uh, whatever, any number of reasons that liberals advance each other uh in their little clubs.
Now get this.
I mentioned earlier that I I would love to see her answer a question about the Supreme Court's majority ruling today on the Second Amendment in the McDonald case in Chicago.
This afternoon on Mess NBC Live, special coverage, Chris Matthews spoke with George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley about the decision today on the second amendment.
Matthews said, let's face it, every state's a Western state when it comes to guns.
They're going to be talking about the Second Amendment with regard to the court nominee, Elena Kagan.
It's going to come up.
They're likely to ask if she agrees with the decision.
She's likely to say she hasn't read the decision, which would be quite plausible.
They are more likely to press around whether she considers this set by starry decisist.
Senators will ask her, you know, if this comes back up to you in a year, two years, four years.
Are you going to follow Starry decisis?
Or are you going to follow that earlier view you say as a clerk that you're not sympathetic with gun uh rights?
This was also an issue during the Sotomayor hearings, uh, where she was also viewed as unsympathetic.
All right, so here we have uh Jonathan Turley advising Elena Kagan on how to answer the gun question, who basically is don't answer it.
And don't even go to it on the stereotypes uh way which precedent.
Um, but she has, you know, made it clear that she's not sympathetic with gun rights.
If she were on the Supreme Court, well, the vote wouldn't have changed because she's replacing a lib.
Uh, but she would have voted against the second amendment, this woman.
This is what needs to be known by everybody today.
She would have voted against the second amendment.
And a trick is going to be getting her to say so.
But we all know it.
It doesn't matter.
To the phones, we're going to start in Detroit, and this is Ken.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Sir, great to have you as the first call today.
Yeah, great to be here, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Yes, I just wanted to comment that when we look at the fact that four votes were against the Constitution, against the Second Amendment.
Uh, this clearly shows why it's so important that uh politically we've got to stop President Barack Obama.
Because the fact that he and uh anyone that uh he would appoint for any uh future uh Supreme Court justices would not support the Constitution.
Uh just shows you us how uh dangerous uh he can be.
Well, no question about that.
And also, if you go look at some of the things that he said this weekend during the G Wiz convention.
First they did a G eight, and then they did the G twenty.
And as far as Obama's concerned, it was the G Wiz.
What happened here?
They all rebuked me.
So what we have the world's smartest leader, Obama, the most persuasive orator, Obama, the cleanest and most articulate guy to come along in a long time, Obama, the man we've all been waiting for, Obama.
And he faced a G Wiz weekend.
On Saturday it was the G eight, and they said no Obama.
I mean, it was papered over.
They didn't actually say no, but they didn't say yes to more printing of money and more deficit spending.
The following day, the G twenty said, no Bama.
I wonder if the G eight guys are mad they're not part of the G twenty.
That might have been part of the problem anyway.
Well, Obama wanted the world to keep spending, to keep scaring their populations.
If you slow down printing money, the world will end, he said.
But the group of eight, and then the group of twenty said, Nit nine, non Bama.
They want to focus on, or they say they're focusing on debt reduction.
See, they've got a 40 or 50-year head start of us.
We're headed where they're headed.
It doesn't work.
That's why the left is miserable everywhere.
None of their sacred ideas work, and it's right in front of their eyes.
This stimulus was supposed to create all these jobs, subprime mortgages, happily, keeping everybody in the house.
They probably spent more time working on a statement than the policies themselves.
And Obama said something else interesting at the G8 or the G20.
He said, ladies and gentlemen, that no nation should have an advantage over another.
Do you know what that means?
I'll explain it in due course.
By the way, Elena Kagan has compared the National Rifle Association to the KKK.
Just saying, just so you know.
No, as in 1996, Kagan involved investigating a bill about volunteer charities during the Clinton administration.
Two memos have surfaced that show that she offered to investigate to make sure that bad guys would not benefit from the bill, and she identified two groups.
Bad guys like the NRA, she mentioned first, and the KKK.
▲
Export Selection