All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 19, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at me.
Look at me.
There is no more compromising with Democrats, and you can compromise with the Taliban.
Who in the hell thinks that this can be done?
Mr. Issa, what are you thinking?
Who are you talking to?
What voters want us to compromise with the Democrats or with Obama?
You don't compromise with the Taliban.
You don't compromise with Castro.
You don't compromise with Lenin.
You don't compromise with Stalin unless you want to starve to death.
The lesson of 1994 is not the government shutdown.
For crying out loud, these analogies amuse me.
Here's the lesson of 1994, and I'll tell you exactly what it was, and I've said this over and over again.
The biggest mistake that was made after 1994 was that Newt and the boys believed that the country had gone conservative, and they stopped teaching.
They removed all ideology from what they did when it came time to balance the budget or implement any new legislation.
They didn't say, and this is because of X, Y, and Z, conservatism, what we believe.
They just did it, assuming that people knew.
That assumption should never be made.
The reasons for doing things must always be explained.
It's in the Constitution.
It's in the best interest of the people.
We care about people.
We care about the country.
We need to fix what's wrong.
That's the biggest lesson of 1994.
We quit.
We quit educating.
And we quit fighting, essentially.
And there was something else that happened in 1994, and this is key too.
I remember I was made an honorary member of the freshman class in 1994, and I went to their what do you go?
Yeah, it uh freshman orientation at Camden Yards.
I went there.
Because they asked me to stand up there and speak to them, and I said, do not think the media is happy you're here.
Do not expect Koki Roberts to come bat her big eyebrows at you and say, let's go to lunch.
Koki Roberts and the rest of the media be agitated that you are here.
They're not going to treat you like the ruling class Democrats.
They're going to treat you as though you're not the majority.
You're interlopers.
They have no interest in dealing with you in a matter of a form of respect.
I remember making that statement plain as day, and I warned them that the idea that they were going to be the majority and have automatic respect as a result of that, not gonna happen.
There's a third lesson.
For 40 years, Republicans had been losers.
For 40 years, Republicans had been in the minority, and then one day they weren't.
And there was nobody on the Republican side who knew what it was like to be in the majority.
I've drawn the analogy.
Those of you who have had weight problems with the course of your life.
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
You lose a lot of weight, but you still stop at every mirror to make sure it's still gone.
Every storefront, every piece of glass, you still look, you turn sideways, am I gaining it back?
You still are thinking fat.
You still think you've got to turn a different way to get through a turnstile when you don't anymore.
You become accustomed to being what you are, and all of a sudden, when you're now the majority and leading and you have no experience at it, what do you do?
Well, that's not gonna happen this time because the same people, some of the same people who were there in 1994 had no clue what to do, were in leadership roles.
Some people who were not in the leadership roles witnessed what happened back then and don't want to repeat it.
So the the 1994 analogy here to 2010 is baseless in any number of ways.
And uh, ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly what the media always does before an election if they think it's gonna go bad for the Democrats.
The headline story in the New York Times before the state primary there last month was New York voters are more hopeless than angry.
The upshot of that story was that it was a waste of time to vote, since all the candidates were exactly the same.
Mind you, this is the primary that gave us Carl Paladino, who's not like anybody else.
Yeah, we have sound bites of that debate last night.
This could have been, this race could have been something.
This race could have, you know, there's this there was a story I had yesterday in the stack.
I'd have to find it over there.
New York voters fed up with Albany.
New York voters fed up with the way things are going, and yet Andrew Cuomo is in the lead.
He is Albany.
Andrew Cuomo personifies what's wrong.
It could have been different.
If Paladino hadn't gotten sidetracked on whether Cuomo had had an affair or not, hadn't launched into attack on Fred Dicker.
Just stuck to the issues of how screwed up the state is and they need to need to be fixed.
It could have been.
Hell, I don't know, might still could be.
But the media always does this.
Try to tell you it's pointless, it's hopeless.
The things that you expect to happen after you win, they're not going to happen because the leaders of your party know you're a bunch of doofuses.
One of the lessons of 1994, too, the GOP wins when they nationalize congressional elections.
And that was revolutionary for 1994.
Nationalize the elections.
You know, house races up to that point traditionally have to run on a local matters.
How much pork had been brought home, who built the old folks' home, who got the new wing on the old folks' home, who built the new water treatment center, that kind of stuff.
But in 1994, they nationalized the election.
And they asked, how will your guy do in defeating the Soviets?
How will your guy do protecting the country?
How will your guy do on the borders?
Essentially, when you nationalize the election, you ask people to think about the good of the nation.
Instead of, you know, whether Congressman Bloghorn brought home some bacon.
And one mistake the elites in both parties are going to make is that all they have to do from now on is get enough earmarks for their district or state.
I think they can still be bought off at earmarks.
The people are realizing more and more that all that really is coming out of their pockets.
It's just being redistributed.
Being taken from them in the first place before it is being given back to them.
There's a story in the Hill.
Capitol Hill newspaper today.
Republicans wrestle with how they would govern in the majority.
Republicans are beginning to publicly wrestle with how they would govern if they capture control of Congress two weeks from now in the midterm elections.
Really?
I'm intrigued.
You want to read on.
As polls show the GOP within striking distance of winning back the House and the Senate, Republican lawmakers are facing competing pressures to either work constructively to help govern or to live up to their electoral promises.
As though you can't do both.
Let me tell you what the fork in the road is.
America or Obama.
We can't have both.
That's the fork in the road.
In fact, that's the next cover of the Limbaugh Letter.
Those of you who are fortunate enough to subscribe, wait till you see the cover of the next Limbaugh letter.
It's a fork in a road.
I'm driving.
America on the left, Obama and the road.
Obama on the left, America on the right.
It can't go both ways.
You can't have both at the same time.
So Republican lawmakers are facing competing pressures to either work constructively to help govern, i.e.
compromise, or to live up to their electoral promises.
Because you can't do both, they say, at the hill.
You can't live up to your electoral promises and govern constructively.
One senior Republican, Senator Judd Gregg, Republican New Hampshire, on Tuesday, questioned whether the party's approach to one of the biggest issues in the election, new health care reform law is a good one.
Judd Gregg on Fox Business Network said, I don't think starving or repealing The health care law is probably the best approach here.
You basically go in and you restructure it.
A comment from the retiring Republican senator reflects not only a shift in his own thinking, but also reflects the tensions facing his party as it prepares to possibly retake the reigns.
Here's the media coming right in here and telling the Republicans you can't, you can't fulfill the obligations of those wacko voters that are going to elect you and govern constructively.
You can't do this.
Meanwhile, CBS News is reporting the national debt is up three trillion on Obama's watch.
And we got a story about how a retired Republican senator says, eh, we can't roll that bill, not the way to go.
We need to restructure.
Republicans say their recalcitrance on physical issues led to their defeats in 2006 and 2008.
No, that they're recalcitrant on.
What led to their defeat in 2006 and 2000.
Well, 2006 is named Foley in 2008.
It is that they began to act like the elites inside the beltway.
What is this?
Recalcitrance on fiscal issues.
They often mention they were fired by voters those years and have promised to adhere to conservative principles should they regain control of either chamber.
Many of the established Republicans are facing their last shot with the party's voters.
Former Governor Alaska, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Monday.
Palin, who led an insurgency earlier this year with Tea Party groups said, if Republicans don't follow through on their promises, voters might start asking why not a third party.
Well, this is a recipe for it, except what's going to happen is the Republican Party will be the third party.
Now, how do you compromise with a three trillion dollar increase in a national debt?
One and a half trillion.
Where do you compromise?
Where is constructive governance on the national debt going up three trillion dollars?
Redstate.com has more on the Judd Gregg situation.
Senator Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, top Republican Senate budget committee said that repealing the new health care reform law or looking to defund it were not good options.
And they have the quote here that uttered on the Fox Business Network.
I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach.
You basically go in there and restructure it.
Now, what do you think is driving this?
Do you think that what's driving Senator Gregg is the issue?
Or is it maybe something?
What else drives politics, Mr. Snerdlee?
Money.
As Red State points out, the Senate leadership staff will say that this is just Judd Gregg who is retiring and not reflective of the Senate GOP leadership.
But there is a problem in the past several weeks.
There have been several closed door off-the-record meetings of high-dollar donors getting briefings from various elected officials.
One of them was down here last week.
I did not go to it.
I was invited to a private introduction to it after it was over.
Well, I didn't do because I knew what was going to happen, but one of these closed or off-the-record meetings of high-dollar donors getting briefings from various elected officials, including several senators.
In each case, the donors have been reassured by the senators present that they have no intention of repealing Obamacare, just restructuring it.
This is what big donors are being told by Senate leaders.
Don't worry, don't worry, don't worry.
We're not going to restructure it.
The senators seem to think that the high dollar donors were not kooks, like the Tea Party activists.
The senators seem to think that the high dollar donors would understand the practical need to just restructure instead of repeal.
Unfortunately, senators have badly misread the donors.
As Red State writes, in any event, you can be sure that Judd Gregg is not speaking out of turn and is not a lone wolf on this issue.
His view reflects that of the Senate Republican leadership despite their protestations to the contrary.
It's worth noting here, neither Mitch McConnell or Lamar Alexander have signed on as co-sponsors to Jim Demint's legislation that would repeal Obamacare.
They haven't signed it.
They're going after the Demint in their in their own way.
Now, Judd Gregg's a little bit of an Obama.
I he was Obama's pick-to-be health care czar.
He turned it down, remember.
But Northeastern, so-called Republican.
No.
No.
Now, these Senate, Senate leaders and Senators believe that their donors are not Tea Party people.
And that their donors think the Tea Party people are kooks.
So they're having these closed-door meetings around like, don't worry, don't worry.
We know what we're doing here.
We'll we'll restructure it.
We're not going to repeal it.
And they guess they're finding out this is not what the donors have in mind.
I know they were given an earful down here.
And that's that.
We come back, we'll get to your phone calls, and I'm prepared.
Just don't ask me why are the Republicans doing X. Because I'm not one of them.
Back after this.
All right, as promised, let's go to the phones.
We're going to start Fort Wayne, Indiana.
This is Bruce.
Thank you, sir, and welcome.
Thank you, sir.
It's a privilege.
The election.
I don't think seventy seats are going to be enough.
I don't think a hundred seats are going to be enough.
I really don't.
For what?
To do what?
In House representatives, November 2nd.
I don't think winning 100 seats is going to affect what we're facing with the Republican establishment.
I just really don't.
We're going to have to.
I just it.
I don't think they're going to get the message.
I think they've got the message now.
But they've got the message.
They just don't want to act on it.
But is a hundred going to do it?
I mean, you uh is is a wave is is that wave of a hundred seats really going to be a little bit more than a little bit.
Let me tell you something.
Now wait a second now.
Wait a second.
Now stop and think of what you're saying here.
If Wednesday morning we wake up and the Republicans have won 100 seats has never happened before in the history of the country.
You don't think that that's going to be enough?
It's going to be enough to stop Obama.
And that's the first thing that has to happen.
It's going to be enough to stop Obama.
It's going to be enough to stop this notion of compromise.
The Senate's going to be the problem with compromise.
I don't know about John Boehner.
I really at times Baehnard sounds great, other times not.
Bahnard's going to be in the leadership position.
And like you said, the Senate was with the McCowski types.
I just I mean McKalski was in Mitch McConnell's kitchen cabinet making.
But now wait a second.
Where is it written that Boehner's going to win the election to be speaker?
Well, I hope it's Mike Pence.
But we'll have to wait and see on that.
Well, we don't know who is even going to run.
But look at now, wait a second here.
This is very tough.
You can't, you can't throw cold water on a hundred seats.
You can't do that.
If we if we win a hundred seats, you can't sit out there and say there's not enough.
That's this is the first of many here.
We've got to start someplace.
I agree, but you you yourself have said the reason you don't go to Washington very often is because there's a disease there, and you go there and you get out as quickly as possible.
That mindset, I mean, you're an honoring honorary member of the class of 94.
You were brought in there, and ultimately at the end of the day, your advice didn't really uh mean a hill of beans being in there long enough that uh that 94 victory became business as usual, followed by Barack Obama.
I tell you, there's there's a there's part and parcel of that.
My advice was heeded by the freshmen.
Uh almost universally.
For time.
Well, there were 56 of them, and they they pretty much uh they all they all heeded my advice.
One of the problems, 1994, one of the problems that exists today in the conservative movement is ego.
Everybody wants to be the leader.
Everybody wants to be considered the smartest guy in the room.
And if somebody is aced out of it, then they turn liberal and left and run against and start writing against conservatism because they got their noses out of joint.
Like Trent Watt.
Like Trent Lott and the Strom Thurman thing.
After that, Lott became rather unreliable and turncoat in many ways.
Well, yeah, you can you can mention individual um uh examples of it to illustrate the point.
Uh no no question about it.
But the freshmen, the freshmen in 1994, they're the guys, they're the people held together to stop Hillary care.
It does matter.
Now that that that was that was fifty-six seats.
It was not a 56-seat majority.
They won 56 seats.
If we win a hundred, nobody's expecting that, by the way.
You can't you can't look at this, it's not enough.
Um, it would be huge.
And as I said, you have to start someplace.
But the conservatism, it's it's it's not a monolithic movement.
There's all kinds of competing ideas in it.
And there are all kinds of different egos, and we're not monolithic.
This is one of the problems that happens.
In that West Virginia Senate race, John Racy and Joe Manchin.
I told you last week a poll came out that had uh Mansion up five points.
This is BS.
This isn't true.
And now, Fox, they're gonna poll out in the report a couple of uh polls that John Racey's up three to five points over Mansion in uh West Virginia.
Gallup.
Unemployment is measured by gallop without seasonal adjustment is at 10% in mid-October, essentially the same as it was at the end of September, but up sharply from 9.4% in mid-September and 9.3% at the end of August.
Now, one of the interesting things, if you read deep in the Gallup story, Gallup is expecting one of the worst unemployment claims statistics, stories, whatever, to be released on November 5th.
The election is November the second.
November 5th would be the end of the week.
Gallup says that the unemployment news that week, the first time claims for unemployment is going to be off the charts.
In other words, all the really bad news is being tamped down prior to the election, and after that, the truth will start to emerge, and just how bad it really is will be reflected in the uh November the 5th numbers.
As well as that, the uh Gallup breakdown of 14.2 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 are unemployed, and 13.8 percent of those with no college education were unemployed in mid-October.
And there are fewer working part-time looking for full-time employment.
So there's no recovery taking place whatsoever, and it's obviously uh uh probably still worsening.
And the truth of that is being tamped down and suppressed during this electoral cycle.
Cheryl, Scandia Michigan, you're next on the phones on the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you.
Great to be here.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Um, if Obama has to face major losses in the House and major losses in the Senate, we better batten down the hatches.
This man is gonna lash out at the American people like we have never seen.
It's gonna be one very angry man.
Yeah, he already is.
That you're exactly right.
He's already starting to do that.
The American people are already stupid.
We don't deal with things well when we're upset and angry.
It will never be his.
That's what that New York Times story was all about.
That 12-pager, it was all it if Obama can't do it, nobody can.
If Obama can't achieve greatness in wars, nobody can.
If Obama can't get his face on Mount Rushborn, nobody can.
It's that they've already started that.
You're very shrewd to perceive that.
Well, uh, it's just it's his personality.
It's just the way he is.
I think he's gonna lose it.
At some point, he's gonna self-destruct.
He's gonna be angry at the Democrats for not showing up to vote, and he's gonna be angry at the Republicans and the independents because they did.
So he's got no place to go.
He's just gonna be angry at everybody.
Well, and I think we're gonna be the ones that are gonna suffer for it.
I see executive orders coming down the chute.
I see him bypassing Congress as much as he can.
Yeah, exactly right.
And that scares me.
Right, but wait a minute now.
Uh the conventional wisdom on the Republican side is that Obama's gonna have to compromise with us.
There's no compromise.
You were a hundred percent right with that.
I know it's his way or the highway.
It always has been.
It always has been.
There's never a compromise with that.
He doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Well, not just you're right.
It's not just that, though.
It's he's serious about his chip on the shoulder agenda about this country.
He's serious.
This country needs to be cut down to size.
He is serious.
This country has to pay a price for its imperialism.
Look, folks.
When I was talking to Dinesh D'Souza, the interview for the next issue of the limbaugh letter.
Dinesh D'Souza's theory is that Obama's father was the primary influence on Obama, and Obama's father was uh hated colonialists, anti-colonialists, hated the British.
So I asked Dinesh, what's the difference in colonial and imperialistic?
He said, Well, basically the same thing.
So the root word of imperialistic is empire.
And what did Obama say?
The empire striking back, meaning us, his opposition is the empire.
I don't think it's accidental.
He looks at this country as colonialist or as imperialistic.
Uh forcing our ways on people, plundering their natural resources, plundering the third party or the third world's poor people, all for our own selfishness, and it's time we pay a price.
Look, it's not hard to accept, well, it may be hard to accept it.
It's not hard to figure it out.
Reverend Wright, look at all of his mentors.
Black liberation theology.
Reverend Wright is one of his mentors.
Look at all the people that bent and shaped Obama and formed him as he's growing up.
They all have a grudge against this country.
They've all got some animus toward this.
So he's not going to compromise.
That's what's so that's what's so silly about about the Republicans now thinking that we gotta compromise.
The American people want us to compromise with him.
The American people don't want to see this guy re-elected.
The American people don't want any more of his agenda.
I'm talking about a majority.
Now I got an email.
Rush, you didn't tell the uh the audience what the reaction was from the senators, and they had closed door meeting that you said took place down in Florida last week.
When the senators came down here and said, Look, uh, you know, we we're not the Tea Party.
We know you're not the Tea Party, we're not gonna repeal health care.
We we can't really do any of that.
We uh we're not gonna have that kind of power.
We're not gonna be able to run things.
You better you better realize people want to know what was the reaction.
Well, I don't know what the reaction everybody in the room was.
I talked to a couple people that were there, and they told me that they went up to the senators and said, Well, if this is your attitude, you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
If this is the way you're looking at it, you can kiss any money from us and you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
So that's what they were told by quote-unquote big donors and quasi uh important people.
That's just two of them that I know who were there.
And one email says, Why weren't you there?
I don't do the group stuff.
I was asked to meet with them afterwards, which I couldn't do because I had we had a bunch of people over.
It was a Monday night, it was a week ago yesterday, we had a bunch of people over Monday Night Football Party, and I I couldn't make it.
But I did talk to a couple people who went.
And they told me full full uh uh full force that they said after the message, if this is what you're thinking that you can't repeal and that you don't have that much power, and you're not gonna really be able to affect change, and you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
Obama, the Democrats are gonna be back in power, if that's the way you're gonna approach this.
I think to the extent that that happened here, and I read Red State, apparently it's happening in a lot of places around the country.
I think I said, Well, what was the reac reaction?
What did their faces look like when you told them?
They said it were blank stares.
When you said to them, well, if that's the way you're gonna look at this, you can kiss 2012 goodbye.
They just had blank stares on their faces.
They said, Yep, just had blank stares.
Like they were broadsided with shock.
So apparently, when they're meeting with um high roller donors, the presumption is the high roller donors are not you.
Not us.
They're not Tea Party.
They're not kooks.
That they are more like the elites, a little bit more reasonable.
So forth.
And I guess they're finding out that that's not the case.
So apparently what the message that's going around here, and I the political piece today, the Wall Street Journal piece, and to the extent that it's true at all of these uh private donor meetings around the country, sounds like the message is yes, we can't.
Doesn't it?
I mean, if you're told, look, gotta keep things in perspective.
We're not gonna control a government.
We're not gonna have that much power.
We're not gonna be able to repeal anything, and certainly uh Obama's gonna have to come our way.
Gonna have to, because he's gonna want to get reelected.
Sounds like yes, we can't.
Now the rep well, the moderate women republic, Lisa Murkowski said, you know what Lisa Murkowski's doing?
A bunch of federal project people, people totally funded by federal projects, are funding her rewrite or write-in campaign in Alaska.
Yeah.
A bunch, a bunch of union types who exist on federal grants are paying for Murkowski's write-in campaign in Alaska.
But when you say the women Republicans are not saying, you mean the Palens and the Michelle Bachmans and Sharon Angle?
Yeah, you're right.
Christina O'Donnell.
No, they're not of that mindset.
We're talking about elected.
We're talking about incumbents.
But look.
Oh yeah, I've I've I've been optimistic from the get go, but I've also tempered it with reality.
This is the first step of many.
When have you known elites to give up power and control?
They're just not gonna say they look at they didn't like it when Reagan won.
I've got I'm gotten blue in the face explaining this to people.
They even bided their time when Reagan won.
And even at that, they worked on Nancy to get their guys in there as uh chiefs of staff or advisors.
You know the elite blue blood types.
And I don't have to mention the names.
Well, I did not mention who do you think I mentioned?
I said I didn't mention, no, not Deaver.
Not damn never, but later on.
I didn't say, no, no, Diver was part No, Deaver and Baker were part of the original No, no, no.
Uh well, which Baker.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm thinking of Duberstein, Howard Baker, um, these guys.
They came in late in the second term.
I mean, even at that point, uh, the ruling class Republicans still, rather than realize what they had in Reagan, still try to get in there and massage it in their own image in their own way, taking advantage of Iran-Contra to do so.
Oh, yeah.
I've uh I uh I but I warned you about this, I'm optimistic because I've never seen a ground swell like this, not in my lifetime.
Now, I'm sure it's happened in the country, civil war and uh the original revolution.
But this needs to be understood.
This is just the first of many battles in the war here.
I remember when I was a neophyte, back when Democrats lost elections, I said, okay, that'll teach them.
No.
It steals their resolve to be even worse.
It's like the lady just said, Obama's gonna get shellacked here.
You're not gonna teach him anything.
You are gonna become more stupid than ever, and you're gonna have to be punished for doing what you did.
So hello, VAT tax, hello, other tax increase.
Oh, folks, they don't learn their lessons.
You're supposed to learn yours when you don't vote right.
I gotta take a break, we'll come back, don't go away.
Now let me tell you something else here.
Uh, Ladies and gentlemen, once the population, once the people who make this country, well, what is the biggest lament of people in the country, particularly those who don't vote?
And my vote doesn't count.
Well, what I what I do doesn't matter.
That's why I don't vote.
System's rigged.
Lobbyists, big money people they run the show.
That's why I don't vote.
Well, once the populace, once the people who make this country work, the moms and pops, once they get the crazy idea that they do have control over elections, that their vote does matter.
When they get that crazy idea, even the legislation that comes out of Washington, you're gonna see a hell of a lot more citizen activism.
Once the people who make this country work lose their cynicism, and this could be an election that causes that to happen.
You talk about 60, 70, let's even dream here a hundred seats.
You think it's not enough.
You think the message won't be received with a hundred.
Here's the big thing.
This is what the elites know.
Once the people out there in the hinterlands, once they in flyover country, once they figure out they can affect the outcome of legislation.
And they got a taste of it with immigration.
They stopped it.
And they would have stopped health care were it not for a bunch of extra constitutional crap, or it not for a bunch of illegal crap.
They had stopped health care.
The American people were dead set opposed to it.
Once they figure out that their involvement does make a difference, you're gonna see a hell of a lot more of their involvement.
And then you're gonna see a hell of a lot more politicians listening to them.
Because one thing is not going to change.
And that is the first objective of any politicians to get re-elected.
So this election could have a major or could be the beginning of a major shift in the people who make this country work actually seeing that their vote makes a difference.
Once they start thinking that, you're gonna have more turnout.
Once they realize that it does matter how they vote, that it does matter that they get involved at the grassroots level.
Once they figure that out, get out of their way.
Katie bar the door, get out of their way, and that's one of the potential things here that's just lurking as a possibility with this election.
Now, a change of pace here for just a minute.
I'm not gonna have time to get into it right now.
We'll do it in the next hour.
There was a debate today between uh uh Christine O'Donnell and Chris uh Coons, and the way the media, I read this this morning, and I knew I just knew, but I didn't have time to get into the details at the time, but I knew with what I had read that it could not be this way.
There was a story that was written in such a way as to make the reader believe that Christian O'Donnell did not know that the First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a religion.
The story was written in such a way they had Christian O'Donnell saying, You telling me that's in the First Amendment?
What she was talking about was this idiot Koons talking about the separation of church and state.
She was saying, are you telling me separation of church and state's in the Constitution?
Because it isn't.
There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state.
It is Koons who couldn't figure out what's in the Constitution.
It's Coons who didn't know what he was talking about.
And so the panic in the con in the state controlled media, they write a story making it look like O'Donnell doesn't know what she's talking about.
They have to misquote her and take her out of context in order to make this point.
Are you telling me that that's in the First Amendment?
Meaning the government cannot officially sponsor a religion.
That's not what she was expressing incredulity over.
She was incredulous that somebody was saying that the Constitution said there must be separation between church and state.
Those words are not in the Constitution.
So I'll play you audio soundbite of this.
And of course, we have other sound bites, we haven't even gotten to those yet.
We'll do that in the next hour when we get back.
Plus, infiltrate more of your phone calls into the mix.
It is the fastest three hours in media, as evidenced by the fact two hours have already gone by.
And if I hadn't told you that, you wouldn't know that two hours had gone by.
Only one precious busy broadcast hour remains today.
We'll come back and get started with it.
We're gonna talk fast, get a lot of stuff in.
▲
Export Selection