All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
March 29, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I got an email during the break.
What happens, Rush, if I don't doubt your theory, but what happens if Gaddafi doesn't leave?
And Obama's got all this invested in Qaddafi going.
What happens if that doesn't happen?
No big deal, folks.
Whatever goes wrong in the Middle East will be blamed on Bush, just like the economy is blamed on Bush.
And no reason for the media to panic on this.
The other side of the story is if it succeeds, if Obama's words force Gaddafi out, and that's the template, if it succeeds, then I'm just telling you, get ready every story, every interview with people on the street.
I mean, Nick Robertson's going to go nuts over at CNN.
He's going to find Mustafa.
He's going to find Ahmed.
He's going to find Khalid.
He's going to find all kinds.
And these guys are all going to talk about how grateful everybody is for Obama and what he has done.
I mean, that's the plan.
That's the hope.
That's what's sketched out on the storyboards here for the Obama doctrine, which is 2012 or bust.
Greetings, that's what it is.
Now, let me address this straight on, Snerdley.
I can't believe Snerdley is scared.
Normally, Snerdley loves it when I illustrate absurdity by being absurd, but now he's really scared.
This is going to come back and bite you.
And I said, well, we've been saying that for 22 years, that things are going to come back.
Yeah, but this one, you might have a problem with this one.
If you're just joining us, I cracked wise about this speech being a domestic policy speech.
This is a campaign speech.
This was for domestic consumption last night.
This had nothing to do with articulating policy in Libya.
This was all about Obama running for re-election and establishing his words as the moving force for good in the world, the Middle East, and all that.
And it's all wound up in Qaddafi.
If Gaddafi goes in the next two weeks or months, as I said, that's big victory.
If he stays, he doesn't.
So I said, if I had a Republican Party, I'd head over there and I would pay Gaddafi to hang in.
You know, I'd reinforce the palace and all this.
And Snerdley said, no, they're going to kill you.
So let me.
This was a clear illustration of illustrating absurdity by being absurd and trying to just illustrate that this is a domestic campaign speech and a domestic campaign issue.
And so if Obama, I mean, it's a logical progression.
If Obama is hedging his 2012 re-election on Gaddafi leaving, then what are the Republicans to do?
Make sure he doesn't.
You know, I mean, the Democrats, the left all over the world, they're getting ready to pay Qaddafi to leave.
Let's get in the game and pay him to stay.
Snerdley's cracking up in there now.
I can't believe he.
Why do you keep mentioning that?
Because it illustrates.
I am fearless.
It illustrates better than anything I could do what this, what arena all this is really taking place in.
But just to make sure, folks, I would not, if I ran the Republican Party, I would not go over there and pay Gaddafi to stay.
I'd ask him to do it for nothing.
All right.
Washington, Washington, Washington, he, he, he, he.
Washington Examiner.
This should give you some comfort.
Admiral James Stiritis, and it's spelled S-T-A-Y-R-I-D-S. Stavritis, it's S-T-A-V. Stevritis, I hope I'm pronouncing it right, who is the commander of NATO and the overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan, well, it says war here, but it's kinetic military activities.
Byron York story, says American intelligence agents are examining very closely the rebel forces for whom we've gone to war.
We don't really know who they are.
We are only now beginning to examine who it is that we have gone to war for.
This is the NATO commander, Admiral James Stavritis.
Might be Stavritis, I'm not sure.
So far, Admiral Stavritis says that the U.S. has discovered flickers of the presence of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although he calls the opposition leadership responsible.
He was appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He was asked by Republican Senator James Inhoff to comment on reports about the presence of al-Qaeda among the rebels, among those with whom we are associated.
Well, we're studying who they are.
So the NATO commander has made it clear in Senate testimony that we're not sure who they are, but we're studying it.
We're going to snerdly, the reason I wouldn't pay Gaddafi is because he's worth $33 billion.
He's above being bribed.
He's got more money than Obama's got.
Just won't let it go.
Gaddafi's got more money than the 12th Imam has.
You couldn't pay Gaddafi enough to stay.
You'd have to go about it in an entirely different way.
Audio sound by time, Mrs. Clinton, this morning in London at the International Conference on Libya.
While our military mission is focused on saving lives, we must continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to the Libyan people.
We cannot and must not attempt to impose our will on the people of Libya, but we can and must stand with them as they determine their own destiny.
Which is war.
And we have to speak with one voice in support of a transition that leads to that time.
We agree with the Arab League that Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead.
But we are not there for regime change.
We are not there to throw him out, but he's lost his legitimacy to lead.
This is classic.
You take both sides.
We're blowing up his army.
We're doing everything, but we're saying we're not getting rid of him.
We're saying he has to go.
He's illegitimate.
He's got to go, but we're not doing it.
This is classic.
You take both sides of it so that whatever happens, you can say, well, no, we didn't say he had.
If he survives, then Obama can say, well, no, we never said we had to get rid of him.
If he goes, we take credit for our words, Obama's words forcing him out.
Hillary also said that the U.S. cannot interfere in other countries.
She has said that before.
These people are all over the map.
They are contradicting themselves practically every paragraph, which is why, if you look at Obama's speech, you look at what Hillary said, look at anything any administration official is saying about the actual issue.
It is incompetence on parade.
It is a fire drill.
It's a cluster.
You know what?
I mean, it is a circle.
It is the epitome of know-nothingness.
Looked at in that regard.
Here's more, Mrs. Clinton, meeting with the Libyan transnational, a transitional national council this morning in London.
The Transitional National Council and a broad cross-section of Libya's civil society and other stakeholders have critical contributions to make.
Earlier today, I had the opportunity to meet with senior representatives of the council and to talk about the path forward.
This is a time of great change for Libya, for its neighbors across the region and around the world.
That's right.
Under different governments, under different circumstances, people are expressing the same basic aspirations.
A voice in their government, an end to corruption, freedom from violence and fear, the chance to live in dignity, and to make the most of their God-given talents.
That's the first time she's ever said she believes in that, and Obama doesn't believe in it, but yet they're out there saying it because it's 2012 or bust.
But you see, they're setting this all up, folks.
Now these people are just like us.
Oh, they just want their freedom, and they're yearning for it.
And who's there to provide it?
Who is inspiring them?
Barack Hussein Obama.
That's what's happening.
Last night, take it back.
This morning, good morning, America.
Co-host George Stephanopoulos talked to Susan Rice, the number two henhawk in the regime.
Stephanopoulos said, the president was very clear last night on what he would not do to get rid of Gaddafi.
We're not going to have a military invasion, but he was less clear on what he will support.
So I want to get into that a little bit.
For example, will the president help arm the forces fighting Qaddafi, or does he believe that's prohibited by the UN resolution?
What the president said was: our mission, our military mission in Libya has been to protect civilians and establish a no-fly zone.
But on a national basis, we obviously have an important interest in seeing Gaddafi step down and the people of Libya have the opportunity to determine their own future.
Those steps include squeezing Qaddafi's resources and cutting off his money, his mercenaries, his arms, providing assistance to the rebels and the opposition, engaging in a political process as Secretary Clinton is doing today in London to chart with our Arab and European partners a post-Qadhafi Libya.
So that could include some military support.
We have not made that decision, George, but we've not certainly ruled that out.
No, we haven't done that.
We might.
We might not.
Depends on how it ends up.
And that's what we'll tell you what we did.
So anyway, Arab and European partners, they're already planning the post-Qadhafi liberal, but Libya, but we're not forcing him out.
And Diane Sawyer with George Stephanopoulos last night, ABC's special coverage of Obama's speech after the president spoke.
Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer had this little exchange.
The president had a far-reaching speech, making it clear over and over again, George, that the U.S. lead role in the operation in Libya is over, even if Gaddafi does not leave overnight.
Is that right, Diane?
The president didn't use the phrase mission accomplished, but that was the subtext of the entire speech.
We have stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance.
We have done what we said we would do.
So ABC last night, after hearing the speech, thought mission accomplished.
He didn't say it, but that's what they heard.
See, I heard something entirely different.
Entirely different.
Mrs. Clinton, by the way, just said she is in London.
I'm watching it up there.
PMSNBC is going wall-to-wall with Hillary coverage.
And she just said, we cannot impose our will on the people of Libya.
We have no specific intel which says that al-Qaeda is involved with the rebels.
She just said that.
That undercuts the testimony of Admiral Stefridas before a Senate committee today who said we do have intel that Al-Qaeda is involved and maybe even other terrorist organizations.
And she has just repeated how there is not no international prohibition against the U.S. supplying the rebels with arms.
So they're definitely preparing for this.
There's no question the regime, Obama, is preparing for this to help nudge Gaddafi out.
Because that is how the success of all of this is going to be measured.
Okay, Mrs. Clinton in London, and again, she just repeated how there is no international prohibition against the United States supplying the Libyan rebels with ammo and guns.
So they are definitely preparing us for this.
We are preparing to arm the rebels.
And folks, let me just say it straight up.
There is no question in my mind, Barack Obama thinks the path back to the White House goes through Tripoli.
The path to the White House goes through Tripoli and taking out Gaddafi.
He has to.
The way this is shaping up with what Mrs. Clinton is saying, what Obama said last night with his criticism of Bush and Clinton, he has to take Qaddafi out.
Gaddafi has to go.
Gaddafi will go.
That's what this means.
And when it all happens, it'll be because of the steel resolve of Obama and his words, his inspiration, and the fear he instills in the hearts of bad guys.
Just warning you.
And Mrs. Clinton said we cannot impose our will on the people of Libya.
People of Wisconsin is a different matter.
And the people of Arizona, different matter.
We'll be happy to impose our will on the people of Arizona, Wisconsin.
But we're not going to impose our will on the people of Libya or Syria.
Here's Michael in Cedars City, Utah.
Great to have you, sir, on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
You bet.
I'm really worried after listening to his speech.
I have a feeling there's an imposter or a doppelganger something going on here because for years we've heard him talk about and apologize for actions like this from America.
Yep.
And that he's proud of America or his wife for the first time because he's nominated.
What's going on?
I don't understand.
2012, re-election.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about.
You're talking about Obama talking about freedom.
United States is the engine of freedom.
We guarantee it.
Anybody who wants it, they have to call us.
We're the only people who can guarantee it.
Fight for it.
Give it to them.
American exceptionalism, all of that, right?
You heard that last night.
You couldn't believe it.
I couldn't believe it.
I was stunned.
This was not the America I heard him describe ever.
No, but it's called re-election 2012.
It's 2012 or bust time is what this is.
He's lost the independence.
He lost the independence in the November election.
He's got to get the independence back.
He is not.
Remember now, when he ran for election, when he ran against America, he was running against an unpopular George W. Bush and against an unpopular Bush policy, Iraq.
It wasn't until he was elected that he actually ran around and started apologizing for the country.
It wasn't until after he was elected that people's radar was now ours.
Well, you and I, we knew all along, but it wasn't until after the election that people started wondering, is this guy really doesn't like the country that much?
Now he's got to make it look like he does.
We're in a re-election mode.
Remember now, liberals can never be honest about who they are and get elected, particularly in a national election.
So I want to just, you know, Michael, be prepared because not only are you frustrated, you are going to get doubly frustrated as people believe this going into the campaign.
You're going to get doubly frustrated when you hear the liberal hacks on all the cable networks talk about American exceptionalism and how Obama defines it, in fact.
You're going to have your intelligence insulted multiple times a day, multiple times a night.
You're going to be asking yourself, do people not remember the past two years?
You're going to be asking yourself that.
And the reason is it's similar to the monologue I dug into last week in Wisconsin.
We do things by the rules.
We persuade hearts and minds, and then we go have an election, and then we win.
So we have time to implement our ideas.
When we lose elections, what do we do?
We say they won.
They get their judges.
They get this or that.
They never lose.
They'll thwart the Democrat process at all costs.
Now, there's a way to, I think another way to explain this to people, and you can do it, it's hard-hitting, but you can do it within the entire context of freedom.
Have you ever noticed that leftists, wherever they are here in America, or the Soviet Union or Cuba, have to wage war on freedom?
They have to wage war on liberty.
Liberty and freedom are the enemy to their existence.
They are statists, authoritarians.
They believe in dictatorship, tyranny, central planning, and control.
We, on the other hand, we believe in freedom.
We welcome it.
We want it for everybody.
We don't try to impose a thing on people.
Now, liberalism, leftism, communism, Marxism, whatever it is, is an enemy.
We fight it.
But not in the same way they fight us.
They can never re, if there is freedom anywhere, liberalism is threatened.
We, on the other hand, never feel threatened when people are free, even to be liberals.
So whereas it is not our natural inclination to eliminate them, not just from positions of power, but from virtual existence, it is their objective to eliminate any opposition that is rooted in freedom.
It's the number one enemy they face.
So we win the election.
Scott Walker wins in Wisconsin.
We implement policies that were campaigned on.
Those policies are in direct contradiction and they contravene the beliefs of the American left and they challenge their bread and butter.
They challenge their economics.
They challenge their lifestyles.
So anything's fair game to defeat, impugn, get rid of, or what have you their enemies in Wisconsin.
And they'll stop it.
Nothing.
Law doesn't stop them.
You know, a fake judge, a renegade judge, or what have you.
So we're fighting, you know, with two different, completely different motivations.
I got to take a break.
Let me expand on this at some point as the program unfolds.
More phone calls when we get back.
All right, it's all shaping up now, folks.
New York Times, Allied leaders agree Qaddafi must be removed.
So wait nine days, get the lay of the land, give the speech last night.
Everybody goes out today and says, yep, Gaddafi's going to go.
Qaddafi's going to go.
Path to the White House 2012 goes through Tripoli, Libya.
Obama has staked his reelection here, a large part of it on Gaddafi has to go.
Qaddafi will go.
And I'm just, again, warning you, you're going to get depressed as hell when you see the media treatment of this when it happens.
I don't want you to get depressed.
I want you to understand what's happening.
And that's why I'm telling you.
Now, Obama is setting in place a new precedent, all of a sudden, respecting our foreign policy and our military.
And I don't mean he respects them.
He's setting a new place, new terms, if you will.
All roads first go through the UN.
That's another reason to wait nine days.
All roads go through the UN, NATO, what have you.
Look for more of this.
And then you turn the operations over to another coalition.
What Obama is doing here is multitasking.
He is undoing our sovereignty while at the same time setting the table to take personal credit for the eventual overthrow of Qaddafi.
Never forget, never forget, folks, Barack Obama has always held himself out as a global citizen, bigger than the mere boundaries of our own country.
All this stuff about American exceptionalism, that's no different than all the BS that he talked about, free markets in the campaign, while simultaneously spreading socialism here.
So while he's talking about American exceptionalism, he is empowering the United Nations.
It's the United Nations and NATO and all these other organizations.
Have you noticed, Mrs. Clinton, we're not, we're not, we're not.
We're not arming them.
We are not getting rid of Qadafi.
We're not.
We're not, we're not, meaning the United States.
They are, they are, they are the UN, not us.
Notice Obama got his moral sanction from the United Nations, not the United States Congress.
Obama did not go to the Congress for this operation on purpose.
He went to the UN.
He sidestepped Congress.
This is Obama seeking his dream to not be held prisoner by the boundaries of this country.
He's a citizen of the world.
He is undoing our sovereignty right in front of our eyes here.
That's what this all adds up to, at least me.
That is my take.
But that's what's happening.
That's how I explain Obama not going to Congress, but going to the UN and empowering NATO.
Now, some of you might say, well, we are NATO.
Well, we are, and we aren't.
By name, we're not.
When it's all over, guess who's going to get the credit for this?
Obama personally, individually, the United Nations as the body that does it, not the United States.
Congress, hey, how are you guys doing over there?
How are your budget cuts going, Obama's asking?
I got bigger things in my mind than your stupid little budget over there.
I'm remaking the world.
Oh, you're worrying about $6 billion in cuts air $10 billion.
Fine, you guys keep arguing about that.
I got bigger things to do.
I got to get rid of Gaddafi, and I've got to transform this world and this country.
That's what he's doing.
Spartans versus Stateburgh.
I'm sorry, Statenburg, South Carolina.
Hi, Thomas.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hey, good afternoon, Episcopal Priest Dittos from Stateburg, South Carolina.
Thank you, sir.
I approach you with a heavy heart, realizing that I'm a graduate of the EIB Institute in 1992, and I just graduated up into your inter-apostolic circle.
So I approach you on my knees.
Thank you.
The only problem is there really aren't any graduates here of the Limbaugh Institute.
There are no degrees because the learning never stops.
Absolutely.
I totally agree.
But my understanding of your worldview in respect to the Constitution is that you believe in Locke's philosophy that men inherently long for freedom.
Is that correct?
You mean Locke?
Yes.
Locke's philosophy, men inherently long for freedom.
Yes.
I happen to believe that that is the yearning of the human spirit.
Yeah.
Freedom.
I think that's how we're created.
I do.
Okay.
Okay.
I don't because this eclipses Augustine's worldview that the West, in my opinion, that the West was built upon Augustine's worldview, mixed in with a little bit of the Enlightenment, but predominantly Augustine's worldview approaches humanity, that humanity is fallen and that there is nothing inherently good in man.
And so the reason I ask this question is if we approach philosophically Locke's view of the Constitution, then we're going to be forever deploying our military in a state of perpetual war to spread democracy to people who inherently, because of the religious worldview, doesn't have this account.
Really?
No, no, no.
I think if you're going to discuss the descent and the fall of humanity in Locke versus Augustus, we must, you've got to go all the way back to the first, maybe even the second glacial age.
And come forward.
And the very notion here that we are using our military to spread freedom and democracy around the world is a false premise.
It's a misnomer.
It is not at all what the United States has done.
Now, President Obama may be giving the impression that that's what we are doing here because he thinks this is what people want to hear.
What President Obama is doing is getting himself re-elected.
President Obama doesn't care about whether the people of Libya are free or not.
George W. Bush did care about whether the people of Iraq are free or not.
That's his religious belief.
And he's manifestly animated.
But you supported that mission.
I supported that mission, and I supported that mission on a preemptive basis because it was right after 9-11.
He would not confirm or disprove the notion he had weapons of mass destruction.
Once something like 9-11 happens to you and you're president of the United States and your constitutional duty is to defend and protect the people of the Constitution, once we find out what our enemies are capable of, they're threatening to do it again.
You stop them because you're protecting the American people.
You're not spreading democracy around the world.
If we were spreading democracy around the world, we wouldn't have engaged in half the military operations we have.
How are we spreading freedom and democracy when we annihilated Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Well, see, now you're getting into a totally different type of conflict of World War II via the arrangement.
I'm not changing conflicts.
I'm simply, you have announced, you have stated a blanket purpose to which you think I ascribe, and that is the use of the U.S. military to spread freedom and democracy around the world because you think you nabbed me in a trick question.
You just explained that.
You think you asked me a trick question: do I believe in the natural yearning of the human spirit to be free?
I said, yes.
You think you have me in a trap.
You don't have me in a trap.
That has nothing to do with U.S. military operations.
It has nothing to do with what I think the purpose of the U.S. military foreign policy is.
I'm telling you what I believe is the creation of man, how I think.
That's my personal belief.
Pure and simple.
You think that that personal belief leads me to support constant use of the U.S. military to spread freedom and democracy.
I point out to you who was free and who was democratic after we bombed Hiroshima and Nakasaki.
We were.
We were defending and protecting ourselves and our military armed forces in the region who were on the way to being slaughtered.
Look, if you want to try this kind of stuff, call the guys at National Review.
They'd love to talk to you about this kind of stuff, but you cannot trick me into it.
No, look, look, look.
I would have been happy to talk with the guy, but I recognize a caller trying to trick the host.
I don't trick callers.
He's trying to trick me.
Now, let me explain I'm pretty sure what he's talking about.
The Declaration of Independence.
Inalienable rights.
We are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration is based on Locke's view.
Now, somewhere along the line here, a lot of people, and I don't really know why they're doing this, but a lot of people have made a huge jump into those of us who believe in the preamble of the Declaration, somehow take it to believe or mean that we in the United States have as our duty to run around the world and make sure everybody lives
that way.
that way.
Now, we don't.
In fact, the founders believed that if we did that, we would destroy our society.
Locke himself did not urge that a society had to spread what it believed in order to survive, and the founders of our country didn't either.
They wrote the Declaration of Independence for us, for them, the United States of America.
There's nothing that says, and it's only going to work if you go to Libya and do it there.
It's only going to work if you go to Iraq and do it there.
That's not what they said.
In fact, if you take this and run around the world and try to spread this, you're going to destroy your own society.
What they argued for in all of this was prudence.
And that was doing what's necessary to preserve our society.
And so if it's in that, that's why the whole question of what's the U.S. national interest in Libya, that's why it's come up.
It was in our national interest to do Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
It was in our national interest to take on Hitler and the Axis powers, Japan, and so forth in World War II.
That was prudence.
We were trying to preserve our society.
Now, somewhere, some people have gotten the notion that in the effort to preserve our own society, we somehow have to run around and do that around the world.
And then they want to jump on you and say, you can't.
It's none of our business because they're not like us.
And that's what his opening question, a trick question.
You believe the natural yearning of man is to be free.
Yeah, I do.
He interpreted that as meaning, I think we should use the military to run around and get rid of every dictator there is.
Only if it's in our national interest do we do that.
That's my belief.
Well, no, you can't say it's not the spread of democracy inherently in our interest.
You can't say that.
What you can say is that the stopping of the spread of tyranny and authoritarianism is.
It's what I was talking about a moment ago in trying to explain the difference between the left and us.
They have to come after us.
They have to wipe us out.
They cannot peacefully coexist with us because they do not allow for freedom.
We are all about freedom.
If there was one state in this country that were free and the other 49, or 56, if you're Obama, happened to be totally authoritarian, they would be targeting that one state to get rid of it.
Where there is an ounce of freedom, the authoritarian is threatened.
We are in the business of preserving ourselves.
And if it takes us elsewhere, where we are threatened, fine.
If we are not willing to defend our own freedom, then it's not worth very much.
Now, there's a difference in believing, as the founders of our country did, that all people have God-given unalienable rights.
The founders believe that, and I believe it.
There's a big difference in believing that and then going around the world and fighting wars to effectuate that outcome around the world because you may not be acting in your own best or national interests in the process.
The founders did not anoint us as guarantors of worldwide freedom.
They established the United States of America as a beacon of and a source of and a location of.
But there was nothing in our charter that says in order for us to remain as we are, we got to go out and make sure everybody else is like us.
And I do not have that view.
And I have never ascribed the use of the military of this country in that way.
Now, there are others, and this Egypt thing illustrated it, and the thing in Libya illustrates it.
There are some, even on our side, who believe, and this guy, if I would have stayed with him, he'd eventually gotten to the neocons.
How long did it take?
Just illustrate this, when Egypt happened, what was it, five seconds?
And there were a bunch of people, well, look, it's a freedom uprising.
It's democracy.
When they didn't even know, it wasn't known what it was.
But the desire for it to be was that.
So if it was, we had to support it.
And that meant getting rid of a well-known ally, Hosni Mubarak.
I've recounted many times, Mubarak, hell.
No great shakes about Mubarak, but in that region, he happened to be a friend.
So in our calculation, U.S. national interests and a rock-solid ally there, Israel, what made more sense?
Holding on to this guy, a known product, or throwing that country into turmoil and ending up perhaps with a militant Islamic regime, which looks like it might happen.
That certainly is not in our national interest to do or to have happen.
Ditto Libya.
But what I want to stress here that none of what I've been talking about is even on the table in terms of the calculation of this White House.
This White House is calculating what they're doing in Libya and elsewhere clearly and singularly on 2012 robust Obama being re-elected.
Now, this guy also talked about being fallen.
You know, that whole concept.
Being fallen does not mean that you don't yearn for freedom.
Yearning for freedom as a natural existence of creation is in and of itself singular.
It does not mean, even like if I believe, which I happen to believe that a human coming out of the womb, natural yearning is to be free.
Now, if from the moment that young baby is born and knows only one thing, oppression and so forth, you know, freedom remains a distant concept, something that they haven't lived, but I believe it's in their soul.
I believe it's there.
But does it mean that we put the lives and fortunes of the United States on the line in that instance simply for that reason?
We don't.
There has to be something far larger than that, because also in this mix is the whole concept of free will.
And that is, especially as a conservative, this is, again, goes back to the whole notion of living side by side with a leftist.
They don't believe in free will.
We're free.
That's intolerable.
We're far more tolerant than they are.
Far more tolerant.
They want none of us teaching in their universities.
None.
Zero.
They want none of us as governors.
They want none of us in their unions.
None of us.
We're the ones who, we don't have a desire to wipe them out.
We won't beat them.
We actually hope to convert them.
There's a break I have to take.
Don't go away.
It's like asking why do men wear shoes, a two-part question.
Why?
We've been asking for decades, centuries, forever.
Why?
The quest for knowledge.
There's never any answer to it.
Do men wear shoes?
Yeah.
Simple.
One hour left.
We'll continue.
▲
Export Selection