All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:28
June 9, 2011, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And once again, greetings, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Another hour of broadcast excellence is upon us.
Hosted by me, your guiding light, the big voice on the right rushland boy at 800-282-2882 and the email address, elrushboat EIBnet.com.
Ann Coulter will be here in about a half hour.
Start the second half hour of the program, 1.33 Eastern Time, to discuss her new book.
The new book's all over the place.
I just want to clarify the book I just told you about, Reckless Endangerment, How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.
The review of the book that I shared with you was by Walter Russell Mead.
He's an historian, and it was sent around by Pat Caddle.
I mistakenly assigned the review to Cadell.
He was simply passing around a piece that, or review of the book, but Walter Russell Mead has written.
As I say, I just got the book.
I got it on my iPad today, which automatically put it on my other iPad on my iPhone because of the new iOS 4.3.
And the cloud, Snerdley.
Cloud's already operating in many ways.
Yes, it is.
You buy an app on your iPhone.
It'll automatically put it on your iPad if you set it up that way.
It's already set up.
So anyway, I'll dig into the book the first chance I get.
I'm swamped.
A bunch of stuff, but I hope to be able to get to it sometime tonight.
Regardless, this book purportedly answers the question everybody has.
What has happened to our country?
What has happened to our economy?
What is going on here?
And the answer is the Democrat Party and crony capitalist associates on Wall Street.
It mentions names.
That this is all a result of the Democrat Party.
That sounds like a simplification, but this is what the book claims.
And two people have written it.
Gretchen Morgenson is one, and she is a business journalist working at the New York Times.
So, as I say, read it myself when I get a chance, and I'll tell you about it.
And I was not kidding about this new health watch story, sitting versus smoking.
Sitting is as dangerous and as bad for your health as smoking is.
That's what they want us to believe now.
If that's true, would somebody tell me how it is that bureaucrats live so long?
What do they do but sit?
Snerdley sits.
It's all he does.
I mean, he's the essence of health.
Snerdley's a picture of good.
Oh, no, now you're a traitor to the cause.
You're going to the gym twice a week?
For how long?
No, I don't mean how many years.
For how long are you in the gym when you get, oh, give me a break.
I don't believe it.
You are going to the gym for an hour a day, twice a week.
Stunning.
Well, you're caving into the pressures of the cause.
No question about it.
Ladies and gentlemen, there were oral arguments yesterday at a federal court in Atlanta over Obamacare.
Three judge panel, two of them were Clinton appointees.
One was a George W. Bush appointee.
They all appeared highly dubious of Obamacare.
Even the two Clinton appointees, they appeared highly dubious of this.
And here's really what it boys, it's the mandate.
It is the mandate in the health care bill that requires Americans to purchase health insurance.
And what the 26 states in their suit, among the many things that they're doing, they are demanding that the government explain where it gets the power to do this.
Where is the power to demand that citizens buy anything?
Where does that power come from?
And the government cannot explain where that power comes from.
There is no history for this.
There is no precedent for it.
The government's going back and forth and trying to say, well, it's not a mandate, it's a tax, and we have the power to levy taxes.
That isn't flying either.
What's amazing about this, in addition to the substance of the case, is that there are two different reports in the state-controlled media here that appear to be straightforward and fair and objective about this.
First, the Los Angeles Times.
Judges sharply challenge health care law.
Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the health care law promoted by the regime and passed last year by Congress.
After nearly three hours of argument on Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to be prepared to declare at least part of last year's law unconstitutional.
Judge Frank Hull, the third member of the appellate panel, or one of the three members, repeatedly asked the lawyers about the possible effect of striking down the mandate while upholding the rest of the law.
She said that the government had exaggerated the importance of the mandate because other provisions of the new law would mean that most of the 50 million people currently without insurance would be covered after the law took effect.
Usually, when passing a complex law, Congress includes a provision known as a severability clause that says that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest can stand.
The House included such a provision in its health care bill, but it was not in the Senate version.
And in the last-minute scramble, the House adopted the Senate's version.
Both sides agreed that the court faced an all-or-nothing decision on this.
So they can't tell the judges where the power came from.
They can't answer that basic question, where do you have the right?
Where do you have the power to issue this mandate?
They do not have an answer for that.
The AP is, frankly, amazing on this.
And I think it's a testament to just how baseless the regime's case is, that the AP cannot even find a way to spin this for the regime.
Greg Bluestein writes for AP, U.S. judges seem receptive to health care challenge.
All three judges questioned whether upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The panel did not immediately rule, of course, on a lawsuit brought by 26 states.
But the pointed questions about the so-called individual mandate during almost three hours of oral arguments suggest the appeals court panel is considering whether to rule against at least part of the law.
Federal appeals courts in Cincinnati and Richmond have both heard similar legal constitutional challenges.
This case yesterday was basically dealing with Judge Vinson, Roger Vinson in Florida, who vacated the whole law.
He invalidated the whole shebang, from the Medicare expansion to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance.
The government contends that the law falls within its powers to regulate interstate commerce, but they could not explain where the power comes from.
Fundamental and key.
Chief Judge Joel Dubina, tapped by George H.W. Bush.
I'm sorry, I identified him as a W, appointee, George H.W. Bush, said, if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on congressional power?
Circuit judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.
The acting U.S. Solicitor General Neil Ketjo sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national but not local problem.
Healthcare coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.
He said that's what stops the slippery slope.
Paul Clement, former U.S. solicitor, who's now representing the states, countered that the federal government should not have the power to compel residents to buy, to engage in commercial transactions.
This is the case that crosses that line.
Judge Hull also seemed skeptical about the government's claim that the mandate was crucial to covering most of the 50 million or so uninsured Americans.
She said that the roles of the uninsured could be paired significantly through other parts of the package, including expanded Medicare discounts and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It was striking.
People watching this, people run hand came to the conclusion these guys are going to wipe it out.
Now, not the end of the trail, of course.
This is going to go to the Supreme Court, but it is important what the lower court rulings are.
They are a factor in how appellate courts further up the chain act and rule.
There are about 75 people outside the courthouse staging a rally urging the court to strike down the law.
There were not, I'm not going to speak of, any pro-Obamacare protesters or demonstrators at all.
They were all anti-Obamacare.
So you have two different disparate stories, L.A. Times and the Associated Press acknowledging here the government's got a problem.
They cannot.
They kind of cannot explain where the power they seek comes from.
They can argue parallels, but there really aren't any.
There are no precedents, and there is no history for them to be guided by.
Yeah, details, details.
We'll see.
And again, this is not the end of the trail.
This will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Brief time out, my friends.
Sit tight.
More of your phone calls are coming up.
And again, a reminder, Ann Coulter, in about 15 minutes.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones we go.
We're going to go to Spring Hill, Tennessee.
Diana, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Thanks for having me.
I'm a first-time caller of a rush baby, and I'm raising almost five rush babies of my own now.
Oh, what a go.
But I wanted to call because I was having a conversation with my parents last night, and we were trying to articulate what it is that women hate about Sarah Palin.
And my mom kind of hit it on the nose.
She said, really, it's just because she's not only a mom and a mom of a special needs child, she's a wife, she's a politician, she's a hunter, she's a TV show person, she does practically every sport.
She's smart.
And with all these things together, she's still feminine and she's still pretty.
And what's not to hate?
I mean, I don't personally, I'm a conservative, and I actually love her a lot.
I don't think I would vote for her because she's not my favorite candidate, but I would still, if she was, you know, obviously primary, I would vote for her.
But I think the best person is a little bit more than that.
I have to ask you a question.
I really, I appreciate that you're a rush baby and all that.
Do you understand how what you just said sounds?
You mean as a...
You have just...
Here she's a woman that basically, let's sum it up, the way you put it, has everything and does everything.
Is it any wonder she's hated?
I didn't say I hate her.
Totally different.
No, I didn't say that you did it.
You said what's not to hate.
What the hell is happening?
I mean, if we're not, if we're, I don't know how to say, if we're going to be threatened by, if we are going to attempt to destroy achievers, and people are successful simply because we're jealous of it.
I mean, I know that's human nature.
That happens.
You know, I'm listening to this, and I'm hoping, this is the one time I hope that the cross-section I'm getting in my email and I'm hearing on the phones, no, no, I mean, don't be offended here.
I'm hoping it doesn't represent most...
I think you're totally right, and I really hope that people, and women especially, don't feel that way.
But just giving you the woman's perspective that, yeah, women can be catty and women can be very jealous.
Well, it's look at the emails that I'm getting that I'm talking about and phone calls.
I'm starting to think here that conservative women are just like liberal women in that they're inclined to vote on superficial and emotional things first.
I never thought that was the case.
I never thought that was the case with conservative women.
Rush, you know what I think?
I think that women that don't know very much about politics and women that don't really know what's going on and specifics, I think they will be more apt to judge on emotion and on things as catty as that.
But I do think that women who are a little more intellectual, they know what they want on a candidate and things like that, I think that that kind of woman is going to vote not based on emotion, but based on brains and based on the best candidate overall.
You know what I think?
I think I'm going to snurdly, we have to revise something here.
In order to criticize Palin, you're going to have to have a picture on file here.
If you're a woman and you want to criticize Palin, you're going to be required to have a picture because the theory's been advanced out there, Diana, that, and this is from Annette yesterday, that most of this is due to women being jealous of Sarah Palin being prettier than they are.
Yeah, that's very possible.
I think it's everything.
I think she's just definitely super woman.
She's the modern-day superwoman.
She does it all.
And she does some of the things that men do, somewhat better than some men as well.
And look at the things that she's done hunting.
Have you ever seen her TV show, The Alaska?
I didn't watch it.
I watched a couple of them, but I mean, she's killing these elk and she's rock climbing these mountains in Alaska.
And it's like, oh, my gosh, it's amazing.
So I think normal people, like normal moms like me, she is just amazing.
She can do everything.
So it's.
Well, look, how come women never hated Hillary Clinton for being beautiful and having the perfect husband and having it?
Never mind.
That didn't happen.
I didn't think any of those things about her, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
Well, but I still, it is, I ask it in a somewhat painful way to make a point.
Do we want candidates, female candidates, and we're going to raise them up because we feel sorry for them?
Because they're victimized somehow?
Okay, Hillary deserves it.
I'm telling you something.
I have made this very clear.
In Hillary's case, the reason, what qualified Hillary Clinton to ever be president?
What was it, folks?
Seriously now.
What was it?
I'll tell you what it was on the left side.
It wasn't policy.
It wasn't anything substantive.
The reason Hillary Clinton was qualified, because there she was.
She was at Wellesley.
She went to Yale and she met Clinton.
And they got married.
And you know what happened?
She subordinated her life.
She moved to the sticks.
Arkansas.
God, it's like moving to Mississippi.
It's like living next door to James Earl Ray.
And Hillary did it.
And while she's in Arkansas, her husband is catting around with Foozies.
And he's dropping dollar bills in trailer parks and still she hangs.
And he humiliated her.
And she still hung in there.
And then they get to the White House.
And then there was all that garbage that happened.
Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress and the further humiliation.
And Hillary was said to be presidential timber in quality because she was owed it that she had paid the dues for Bill Clinton.
She had essentially eaten an excrement sandwich every day of her life since she met that guy in order to make it possible for him to get where he went.
And after all of that, look what he did to her.
And so that's, we admire Hillary Clinton for that.
We feel sorry for Hillary Clinton for that.
Liberal women feel sorry for Hillary Clinton for that.
And there's a lot of other factors I don't dare mention.
I'd be right on the money with him.
I'd be 150% right, but there's no way I can win mentioning them.
Don't goad me, Sturdley.
I will not mention them.
I don't care.
Nope.
But you know what I'm talking about here.
The point is, and she's not alone.
Hillary's not alone.
The feminist women, liberal Democrat women, are viewed as deserving of high posts because of some victim status that they have acquired throughout their lives.
They've either been mistreated somewhere along the line because of this factor or that factor or what have you.
And of course, their liberalism is a requirement.
That's a given and so forth.
But, you know, I just, I listen to this criticism of Sarah Palin, and some of it is simply repeated drivel from the mainstream media.
And now I'm hearing that she's not electable because she's too good looking and her husband loves her and all this kind of, I'm thinking, the issues are too important for this kind of stuff to matter.
You can try all you want, but I am not going to mention it, Sturdley.
You can't, I don't care.
Not gonna, not I am not gonna do it.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
And Ann Coulter, we welcome to the EIB Network.
Where are you?
Are you in New York today, is that right?
Yes, I am.
The book just came out a few days ago.
Yeah, I know.
And I got to ask you about demonic.
Who's demonic?
The actual title is Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America.
Who were you thinking of when you came with the title Demonic, the Girls on the View?
That would be one excellent example.
I first got the idea for the book because I spend so much time around liberals, as you know, on college campuses, for example, going to their TV shows.
And they do seem to exhibit mob-like behavior.
Ann, do you mean in mob, do you mean physical, literal, mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like behavior?
What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?
That's a great question because it's both, actually.
The first quarter of the book is on how liberals are a psychological mob.
It has to do with their slogans, how they formulate arguments.
They got a lot of slogans, whereas conservatives just don't speak in slogans, and we don't understand slogans.
And for good reason, it's always sort of glib and superficially appealing.
But if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, slogans never make sense.
What does it mean to say you can't hug a child with nuclear arms or pro-choice, pro-child?
It means nothing, but that is perfect for appealing to a mob.
It's simple-minded.
Gustav LeBon, the father of Groupthink, said, don't ever use logic with a mob.
It confuses them.
Gustav LeBon, before I get, I want to ask you to explain who he is and how you came upon him.
But your books are a series of many things.
And one of them that I would say is you're constantly trying to define and explain liberals to your readers.
Do you foresee the day?
I asked this question because we're all in this in one degree or another.
I remain perplexed.
We had, for example, eight years of robust economic recovery.
We have great in Reagan, the 80s, and yet people have forgotten that liberalism is so easily seductive.
You ever see the day where your books aren't going to be necessary, where people understand who liberals are and how they operate and why?
Oh, that's a great question.
I used to think, yes, someday we're going to persuade them.
And every once in a while, you feel like you're making progress.
But first of all, as I now know from learning about mob psychology, in the moment of a mob, a man in a mob, you can sit him down, you can educate them, you can show them the facts, and you'll finally persuade that one liberal.
And then you come back a few days later and he's right back to spouting the same nonsense.
And that itself is an example of groupthink.
And having now covered in this book 200 years of the history of liberals, I think, no, it'll always be with us.
It is, mobs are demonic, and they will always be with us.
They've been with us for 200 years.
The most we can do is warn peaceable Americans that mobs are dangerous.
Well, Gustav Le Bon, you stumbled across him as your latest vehicle to try to explain to people how liberals operate, how they achieve or attempt to achieve their objectives.
Give us a little historical review of him.
Yes, well, I read once I just, I had this idea in my head that liberals are a mob.
And so I just started reading everything I could find on mobs, groupthink, herd behavior, riots.
And I'd heard of Gustave Le Bon, but all the other books were sort of on the periphery.
And then finally, I read Gustave Le Bon's book, The Crowd, a Study of the Popular Mind.
And it was so clear, so beautiful.
And of course, he turns out to be the father of Groupthink.
He's the first one to notice the psychological characteristics of someone behaving in a mob.
Not surprisingly, he was French since the first mob revolt, certainly in anything resembling modern times, is the French Revolution.
And I date the beginning of liberalism to the French Revolution.
And just page after page, you read through this book, and it's liberals.
It's all of their peculiarities.
I almost went back and started inserting some of the other statements from the other books I had read into this book to show that it was more than Le Bon.
But he was just so clear and so right.
In fact, he was so good.
Although the book is a warning about mobs, both Mussolini and Hitler studied his book in order to learn how to incite mobs.
What are some of the characteristics of mobs?
Myth-making, contradictory thinking, creating messiahs and turning those who disagree with you into opponents, simple-mindedness, inability to grasp logic.
You see a lot of it right now in Wienergate.
It's funny.
Now when I watch the liberals on TV, whatever they're doing, I think, oh, yeah, that's myth-making, and that's contradictory thinking.
Last night at the beginning of the Rachel Maddow show, she had a long segment denouncing, of course, in the middle of Wienergates, David Vitter, senator from Louisiana.
He is the only Republican ever caught in a sex scandal who didn't resign immediately or lose his reelection.
But of course, his scandal was very different from every other one I can think of.
The D.C. Madame released his name.
I'm sure there were a lot of Democrats on that same list, but their names weren't released.
And what we found out was that seven years earlier, he had gone to a prostitute twice, told his wife about it, apologized to her, confessed to her, confessed to God.
She had forgiven him.
The marriage had continued.
And seven years later, we find this out.
As soon as his name, David Vitter's name, was released from the D.C. Madam's list, he went straight out, apologized, admitted it, held a press conference.
He's standing there with his wife saying, I told her seven years ago.
He didn't turn around and start denouncing the press and claim he had been hacked.
And after all of this, this on Rachel Maddow, denouncing Vitter as if his sex scandal were somehow worse rather than less bad, I mean, we do have forgiveness, this Rachel Maddow concerned with, you know, the misogyny and the ugliness of David Vitter having visited prostitutes seven years before we found out interviews as her expert interview on this, Larry Flint.
He's your expert on misogyny here.
Isn't that kind of fits with Woody Allen at one point was held up as the poster boy for Democrat morality back early when he ditched his wife for the daughter, for the adopted daughter.
Now, would you say the opposition to Governor Walker in Wisconsin, that was a mob.
Acorn's a mob.
The Arab Spring, all of these things that pop up that have mass movements to them.
Social media are responsible, it is said, for what happened in Egypt and so forth.
That's all mob-oriented.
Somebody organizing all of this stuff, is there some grand council, grand wizard council knows how to manipulate the rank and file, turn the mob out, inform the mob, give it its marching orders and talking points?
Yes, I mean, as it's described by historians, for example, who've reviewed various mob movements, it's just, it could be anyone.
It's the person who shouts the loudest.
And by the way, you've segued right from psychological mobs into literal mobs.
That's part of what makes mob psychology so dangerous.
There's always the threat of violence.
And in the, I guess, the last third of the book, I look at actual violence here in the United States in a 200-year history.
And the violence in America, political violence, has always been committed by the left.
Liberals keep talking about how terrified they are of the Tea Partiers and conservatives and, oh, our violent rhetoric.
Well, they're afraid of their own fears.
That's what we're supposed to worry about, that they're afraid of something.
We're afraid of them actually punching us, biting off a finger, or shooting us.
Every presidential assassination attempt, for example, has been, at least the ones that were political at all, some were just committed by pure nuts.
The ones that had a political basis were all committed by liberals.
Not a single conservative has attempted to assassinate a president, and there are about a dozen of them.
Even at the recent Tea Parties and town halls, the only violence was committed by liberals, including one liberal biting a guy's finger off.
Right.
But how would you say that the Tea Party's not a mob in the non-physical sense?
I mean, a Tea Party sprung up.
They attended all these town hall meetings.
It did effervesce from the grassroots.
Didn't seem to be any single leader or organizer.
But I'm sure liberals who listen to this program in Legion are probably shouting at their radios right now.
Well, hell, a Tea Party's a mob the way she's talking.
What would you say to them?
Well, a mob isn't just any assemblage of like-minded people, you know, or every book club would be a mob.
So for one thing, there has to be violence or the prospect of violence.
And so just straight out of the shoot, you look at these Tea Party rallies and they leave the parks that they gather in cleaner than when they showed up.
But also it is the Tea Party actually is, in keeping with its name, more in the tradition or in the tradition, not more in the tradition, in the tradition of the American Revolution.
These are people who are reading the Constitution, who are reading the Federalist Papers, who are making arguments.
I list about four dozen, three dozen slogans of the left in chapter one.
I don't know what the Tea Party slogan is.
I've seen some signs that are relatively clever most of the time, usually, you know, anti-Obamacare, read the bill, that sort of thing.
But there's no slogan for the Tea Party.
There's no violence.
It is an argument of ideas.
Whereas the Democrats are using the Russoian method of ginning people up by frightening them.
They're going to take your health care away.
Here's Representative Ryan pushing an old lady in her wheelchair off a cliff.
And conservatives are reading things and coming up with arguments with Medicare and Social Security about to go bankrupt.
They're looking at a plan, not looking at slogans or pictures of a representative throwing an old lady off a cliff.
We're talking with Ann Coulter, and her new book is Demonic.
And we've got to take a brief time out here at Obscene Profit Break.
We'll be back before you know it and continue right after this.
You have a, by the way, welcome back.
Ann Coulter is our guest for the remaining part of the hour.
You make a point in the book, you made a case in the book, that since the civil rights movement of the 60s, the American people lost their natural inherited aversion to mobs.
Now, this is fascinatingly interesting to me because in my lifetime I can remember and the American people were livid at Kent State.
They were livid at what happened.
They were livid at the protesters of the 60s.
They were livid.
They had a total aversion to this kind of behavior.
We've lost that aversion now.
Now there's a ⁇ it seems culturally we say, well, we must tend to understand their rage.
When did this happen and why?
I think it's the civil rights movement because that was the first mob, so to speak, street protest that was on behalf of a good cause.
Every other mob there was no sympathy for.
In fact, it was Shays of Rebellion immediately after the revolution that caused us to become one country rather than 13 Confederated States.
People were concerned that if there wasn't one central national government, there would be no controlling of mobs.
Abraham Lincoln sent the troops into New York City during the Civil War when, of course, Democrats rose up in a rabble and started lynching blacks.
Abraham Lincoln crushes the mob, goes back, wins the war, and then he carried New York State.
So there have always been these mob uprisings.
The first time a mob uprising was on behalf of a good cause was the civil rights movement.
I contrast Martin Luther King with Thurgood Marshall, who suddenly has become sort of a hero for me.
When I first read about him in law school, he was just signing on to everything with William Brennan, and I just thought he was another poopy-headed liberal.
But his early history, I place Thurgood Marshall in the tradition of the American Revolution.
He was making arguments.
He was winning cases in court.
He won Brown versus Board of Education in 1954.
And by the way, we never would have needed a civil rights movement if Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election rather than Kennedy.
But these Democrats, because they always appealed to the mob and their mob at that time, at least part of it, included racist, segregationist Democrats, the Democrats, both Kennedy and Johnson, kept dragging their feet on civil rights enforcement.
So then you have Martin Luther King's movement, though that was much more in the French Revolution tradition.
Martin Luther King stages a massive protest in Birmingham, Alabama, after Bull Conner, a Democrat, who was an insane racist, had already been voted out of office.
First, the good people of Birmingham eliminated Bull Conner's office once they discovered they had an insane public safety officer.
He ran for mayor and lost.
The Kennedy Justice Department called King and pleaded with him not to stage his march anyway because Bull Conner was still a lame duck public safety officer.
The blacks in Birmingham begged Martin Luther King not to stage the protests, but he did it anyway, sending in children against this insane racist Bull Conner.
Images are broadcast around the world, and this gave a big jolt to Martin Luther King's movement.
People were sympathetic because it was a good cause.
And now you'll notice liberals, every time they run out into the streets, every time they start smashing Starbucks windows, they say, oh, well, it's the new civil rights movement.
No, there was only one civil rights movement.
Well, what makes these people so easy to control?
I'm down here about two minutes here, but I'm always fascinated by this myself.
Why are the Democrats or these mobs they use so easily controlled, so easily possessed?
How are they able to organize so many people into this groupthink?
Well, two things.
First of all, look at who their voters are.
They openly brag about having the least informed voters.
They're very upset when Republicans and other people who don't want voters fraud request IDs simply in order to be able to vote.
They want illegal aliens.
They want felons.
They want soccer moms.
They want non-native English speakers.
They have college kids.
So, you know, they have the most easily fooled, naive, and perpetually alarmed members of the country as their base.
And secondly, I have a whole chapter on status anxiety and how some people are really obsessed with what others think of them.
And we call them liberals.
I give a number of examples of that.
And that's why, I mean, I think conservatives are by and large immune from that because they tend to believe in a real God.
So it's an up-and-down relationship, and you don't have to care what people around you think.
Well, you're right about that.
I said, if we could get rid of that characteristic and people worrying about what people think of them, we could come up with a good nominee.
Yes, yes.
Ann Coulter, Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America is out since Tuesday, and we wish you the best of luck with it.
And as always, thanks for your time here.
You're great.
Thank you.
Great to talk to you, Rocky.
Ann Coulter, and we will be back after this.
You know, there's a woman out there that's doing everything Ann Coulter is talking about.
And that's Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, this new babe that's running the Democrat National Committee.
The things that she is, she is inflammatory.
She's racist.
She is using inflamed rhetoric.
Republicans want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws, literally just throwing a barrier in the way of somebody trying to exercise their right to vote.
This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.
I mean, she's just over the top trying to rally the Democrat voters as a literal mob.
And she's running a Democrat Party.
▲
Export Selection