All Episodes
Previous Next
July 4, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
July 4, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What's that mean?
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
It's great to have you with us, my friends.
Our telephone number, when we get back to the phones, is 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at EIVnet.com.
We'd like to welcome to the program Rick Santorum, who is one of the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.
Senator, how do you prefer to be referred to these days?
You were last a senator.
How are you anyway?
Well, Rush, thank you so much for having me on.
And Rick works just fine.
That's what I was just in a diner in Nashville, and a young lady asked me the same question.
I said, Rick works well.
And so we're not in office anymore.
I'm just out there trying to, as a private citizen, trying to make a difference in our country.
Well, I was going to ask you why now?
Why to crowded Republican field?
There are a lot of, the Republican Party is at war with itself, in addition to being at war with Democrats and Obama.
What is it about now that made you decide to toss your hat into all this?
Well, I said this yesterday.
The reason I went to Somerset County actually two days ago and announced was that's when my grandfather came to this country.
He came, left fascist Italy, Mussolini's Italy in 1927 because he didn't want his family growing up with the government telling him what to think and how to do things and get a good job.
He lived in a beautiful little town in northern Italy on a lake and left his eight brothers and sisters and came to this country and worked in the coal mines and ended up until he was 72 years old.
And he used to tell me when I was a kid that the most important thing was freedom.
And I just believe with what we've seen in this administration over the past two years that we are at risk of losing our founders' freedom.
We're at risk of losing what this country has fought for for 200 years.
And I believe the linchpin in losing that is Obamacare.
And you know, Rush, that Lady Thatcher said when she left, after she left office and reflected on her career, that she was never able to accomplish in England what Ronald Reagan did in America.
And she said that she blamed the British National Healthcare system.
And what I said yesterday or two days ago was that once the government has an IV line to you and that they can withhold nutrition and withhold care, they can get anything out of America and they can go bigger and bigger and more powerful.
And I just feel like we have to stop Obamacare.
And I think we need a candidate who can be crystal clear on that and had a strong, consistent record on not just health care, but on limited government.
And I believe that I can bring that to the table as someone who's been a very strong, consistent conservative over the years.
You've been doing some radio hosting.
You have guest hosted for Bill Bennett on his show.
So since you've done that, you ought to be able to do just about anything now.
Well, I'm not.
Including the print.
What did that teach you?
I mean, you'd never done it before as a host.
Did that have any factor here in you wanting to get back into your political career?
Well, it was actually a really great way to stay in tune with what people were thinking.
And it was very, very clear to me.
I'm a listener to TalkRadio.
I've been listening to you for 20 years and really believe in the dialogue and interaction that goes into trying to understand where America is.
And I think Talk Radio is a great place for that.
And I certainly heard from listeners and in traveling the country.
Because after I started to do Tucker, I started to do a lot more traveling because I was really concerned about Obama and Obamacare and cap and trade and car check and all those things that were floating back at those times.
And I don't claim to be a Tea Party person because obviously I've been involved in politics for quite some time, but really for the same reasons the Tea Party people decided to come out of the woodworks.
I really decided to come out of my woodworks and get back involved in this because I have seven children, Rush, and I think my duty to them is the same duty that my grandfather was to me, which is to create a, to make sure that we pass on a country that's free.
And I really do believe that's at risk in America.
I think this election is the most important one since the election of 1860.
Why?
Freedom.
I mean, I really can't stress enough how I believe that what Obama's view of America, I always use this quote that he said during Paul Ryan's response to the Ryan budget, he was talking about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and he said that, you know, America is a better country because of those programs.
And he went on and says, he said, I'll go one step further.
America would not be a great country without those programs.
That man doesn't understand what makes America great.
What makes America great was a government that was founded to be limited to doing one thing.
I really believe the whole purpose of America, the aspirational value that why everybody who wants to come to this country wants to come here was because if we respected the dignity of every human person, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, it is to protect life and liberty.
That is what America is all about.
It's not to take care of people, but it's a belief that free people, if given the opportunity, provide for themselves, collectively we can build a much greater society.
We can build a society that's a good and decent society if government just stays out of the way and creates an atmosphere for opportunity, protects us from outside sources, and creates a level plane for all of us to be able to achieve in our lives.
Now, Rick, in that answer, which I liked, I heard a lot of references to what some would call the social issues.
I remember you've said when you announced your candidacy, and you've gotten close to it here, too.
You said you wanted to make sure that there is a conservative in the race who has a track record of leading on moral cultural issues.
Now, you know as well as I do that within the what I call the inside the beltway elitist or ruling part of the Republican Party, they don't want any part of the social issues, Rick.
They don't want to go there.
They don't want candidates that are going to make a big deal out of the social issues because they're afraid of abortion rearing its head, becoming an issue.
Does that present you a problem?
Because this is one of the areas where the Republican Party is in a war with itself.
What I call the, for lack of a better term, the intelligentsia of our party just don't want to go.
They want to keep it supposedly strictly on the fiscal side, but you're fearless going after on the moral and social issues that you've just done here.
Yeah, look, I believe, as you heard, I mean, we're endowed by our creator with certain rights, life, liberty.
I mean, America is a moral enterprise, Russ.
I mean, the idea that Republicans can win elections if we got there and just say all we care about is money.
I mean, people don't care.
Of course, we care about our jobs.
We care about money, but we care about our families.
We care about our communities.
We care about the dignity of life.
We care about living good and lives that add to the greatness of this country.
And the idea that we can have limited government rush without strong families, I mean, the family's the first economy.
If the family breaks down, well, government gets bigger because of the consequences of family breakdown we see in the neighborhoods where there are no marriages and there are no two-parent families.
No, you can't ignore the reality that faith and family, those two things, are integral parts of having limited government, lower taxes, and free societies.
We are either going to be constrained by internal controls, internal restraint on our behavior, or we're going to be restrained by external restraints.
And when people say that we can live free and people can do whatever they want to do, show me an example of that in human history.
It doesn't work.
And so I am going to talk about it.
Look, I understand.
You heard me say, Russ, the most important issue is obviously freedom and repealing Obamacare and getting government out of people's lives, lowering taxes and creating growth.
And you know that I was a leader on welfare reform and I was the guy that led the charge in the United States Senate and actually wrote the original bill when I was in the House.
I was the guy that helped end the federal entitlement.
I embraced the Ryan plan and said that it's a good first step.
And frankly, I would go even further than that.
And I'm out there and talking about all the important issues of the day, but you can't ignore the entire picture.
And I don't think Americans want us to ignore the entire picture either.
We're talking with a former senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
Now, you are, obviously, in addition to being self-described, people just heard it, social fiscal conservative.
You first won a House seat.
You're from western Pennsylvania, heavily Democrat district.
You then...
Thanks to your old radio station, KQV, where you were this happy on KQV.
They turned...
As you know, they turned into a news format.
And we're the only station in the area that actually covered me.
But I beat a 14-year incumbent, was not given any chance.
And six months before the election, I had 6% name recognition.
So we go about it the old-fashioned way.
This is my 18th visit to New Hampshire.
We're working hard.
That's what I was going to ask you.
You won your House seat in that district.
You then went on to win the Senate twice in a state that most people would not consider to be a majority in support of you.
Now, so you've got, you can tell us how a social conservative can win in a blue state like Pennsylvania or in several blue states.
How would you do it today versus what you did then?
Why do you think you lost the last time you sought the Senate?
Well, I think you're right.
I mean, I won my first four races.
I mean, four out of five.
Not bad.
And three of the first four races, I ran twice for the House, once against this incumbent Democrat.
The second time I got redistricted into a 71% Democratic district against another incumbent Democrat, I won that seat.
The third time I ran for the Senate in Pennsylvania, 600,000 more registered Democrats and Republicans against another Democratic incumbent and won that.
And then in 2000, when George Bush lost the state by four points, I won it by five.
And in 2006, it was a horrible election year.
And, you know, I lost.
But I lost because I continued to be a constant conservative.
And in the last six years, I was someone who was a national figure in the sense that I was the third-ranking Republican in leadership, and I had just run President Bush's campaign in Pennsylvania.
The reason I was able to win before is because people, while they didn't always agree with me, they knew where I stood, and they knew that I did what I believed was right and that I stood for what I believe in, and they could trust me, even though they didn't necessarily agree.
And I think for a president, very few people believe, you know, vote for somebody because they agree with them on everything.
Most people don't agree with everybody on everything.
But they want to believe that that person is trustworthy.
They want to believe that they're authentic.
They want to believe that they're going to actually do what they say they're going to do and that they can be trusted.
And for a long time in Pennsylvania, that was enough to me to get a lot of moderate and conservative Democrats to join Republicans and win.
And in 2006, it was just a meltdown year.
I still led the ticket in Pennsylvania, but our gubernatorial candidate lost by 22 points, and it was just a bad year.
We are talking to Rick Santorum.
We've got to take a brief time out here.
We'll be back, and we will continue with this before you know it.
Don't go away, folks.
And we're back, Rush Lindboy, here with Rick Santorum.
Republicans seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
Nick Romney, in his announcement earlier this week in New Hampshire, said, yes, he believes there is global warming, and yes, he thinks human beings are contributing to it.
Do you?
I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler.
And I think history points out that it does that.
And that the idea that man, through the production of CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas, is somehow responsible for climate change, is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air.
There's a variety of factors that contribute to the Earth warming and cooling.
And to me, this is an opportunity for the left to create, it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know the Earth is going to cool and warm.
And so it's been on a warming trend.
So they said, oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.
Just like they did in the 70s when it was getting cooler.
They needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it's getting cooler.
It's just an excuse for more government control of your life.
And I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.
I see that you've signed the anti-tax pledge in New Hampshire.
What are the specifics?
I'm actually signing that today.
That's right.
Which basically says that I believe in pro-growth policies.
In the time I was in the United States Senate and the Congress, I never voted for a tax increase, believed and voted for every tax cut that was made available to do.
And because I believe that we need to have a situation in our country where government is an incentivizer for business by creating low rates and reforming and our regulatory structure to make it more friendly to business and an opportunity-oriented.
As well as I was a very strong supporter of litigation reform to get litigation costs down in our business.
We can compete with anybody in the world if we're provided a playing field that isn't tilted against us.
And that's what I think Obama and the Democrat and the left have been doing for a long time in America.
Let's talk about Obama.
I've talked to a couple, not a whole lot, a couple of potential, some have announced, some haven't, Republican presidential nominees.
And almost all of them, Rick, said to me, Rush, we can't attack Obama.
We can attack his policies, and we should, and we've got to go after his policies, but we cannot be critical of Obama.
What is your reaction to that thinking?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I'm going to attack the president when he's wrong, and when he does things that I think are against the interests of our country.
And my feeling is that we haven't talked about national security.
When the president of the United States goes out and apologizes for America, When he goes out and seems to embrace or even bow to foreign leaders when he does things that I think make us weaker in the eyes of our enemies and make us unreliable in the eyes of our friends, I'm going to attack him and I'm going to attack what he does.
So you're not going to say, look, I didn't defeat and knock out three Democratic incumbents by not going after my opponent and making sure that they knew that they were going to be held accountable for everything they did and said.
Well, what they mean is he's the first black president, and they don't want to be called racist.
And so they can't be seen as attacking Obama personally.
Of course, I, to check myself in this, imagine that.
I don't know how you separate somebody from their policies.
Obama is you are your policy.
So, and you know, Mitch Daniels said that he would be reluctant to debate Obama after we got bin Laden.
He said, I don't know that I'm ready to debate Obama on foreign policy.
You just said you're clearly willing to.
Absolutely.
Look, what Osama bin Laden, what Obama did in getting Osama bin Laden was simply a tactical decision.
Presidents, by the way, usually don't make.
The only reason he had to make this tactical decision is because we're going into a foreign country to extract him and kill him.
But other than that, because he's such a high-value target, yeah, he had to make a tactical decision to get bin Laden.
But what presidents are responsible for are not tactical decisions, but higher-level strategic decisions.
And in every contingency that's come up during the Obama administration, President Obama has gotten it wrong and gotten it wrong badly, whether it is throwing Mubarak under the bus, whether it was not going after and supporting the Green Revolution in Iran, whether it's being on the wrong side of Hondurans who were trying to get rid of an Hugo Chavez puppet in their country.
And we're still on the wrong side of that, whether we stiff-armed Colombia in their attempt to get closer to us, to try to rebuff Chavez and the socialists in South America, whether it's the polls and the Czechs that we abandoned to the Russians in pursuit of this utopian ridiculousness of a nuclear-free world that the president is advocating.
He has been on the wrong side of every national security issue since he's been president, and it's made us weaker abroad, and it's made us less secure here at home.
I have a minute and a half.
You ever ask yourself where the American people are politically?
You ever fear the American people just maybe want a European socialist country that they'd rather be dependent on governments?
Does that worry you?
Does it worry me?
Well, you know, you know, Rush, because you combat it every day with the popular culture and the media and academic institutions.
That gets pounded away every day into the minds of our young people.
And I don't know how many times I've listened on your show where people said, you know, you opened the scales, fell from my eyes.
Finally, it's making sense to me.
I understand what all of these lies have been told.
You tell people lies enough and you indoctrinate them enough.
Of course, I've got grave concerns.
And that's one of the reasons I'm doing this is because I think we need, look, whoever who's the person who's been able to win the presidency since the age of television has had one thing in common.
They've been the best communicator in the race.
We need someone like a Rush Limbaugh who can communicate and can touch the soul of Americans and can reach out across the radio and television and paint a vision that helps drop those scales, that can remind people what a great country we are, and that it's a great country because we believe in free people and the ability of free people to provide for themselves, the family, their community, and the God they love.
That's what America is about.
And we can get back to that.
We need to begin to believe in ourselves instead of having someone believe, tell us that they need to believe in him, the anointed want to provide for them.
Rick, thanks for your time.
Your passion is infectious.
It really is.
Thank you.
My wife will tell me if I don't get my website in ricksanthorum.com.
If you can please go to that website and send even a small contribution to encourage us and help us along the way.
All right.
RickSantorum.com, right?
Yes, that's it, Rush.
Thank you.
You bet.
Thank you very much.
Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania, now seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
And we've got a brief timeout.
And we still got people on the phones on hold.
We'll get to your phone calls and a couple of choice soundbites.
Trump saying I'm right, which, I mean, that's not unique.
Everybody does, but it's nice to hear.
Back after this.
You can try all you want, but I am not going to mention it, Sturdley.
You can, I don't care.
Not going to, I am not.
You're going to do it.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
And Ann Colder, 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 up 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 Gustav 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 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 what Woody Allen at one point was 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 have 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, 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 Russillian 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, but 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.
Yeah.
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 that 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.
Like I said, if we could get rid of that characteristic and people worrying about what people think of them, we can 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, Rush.
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