All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
September 9, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers, drill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Well, I must have gotten something out of order here.
I'm looking for the great paragraph that Conrad Black wrote on John Kerry.
And it's not here.
And I don't want to paraphrase this, and I just now discovered it as I'm getting ready for this hour.
Ah, here it is.
Here it is.
You gotta listen.
This is this is Conrad Black, this is in the New York Sun yesterday.
I mean, this whole piece is uh it's a companion piece essentially to Norman Pedoritz's piece.
The whole thing is a must-read.
But listen to this paragraph on John Kerry.
Until recently, it would have been unimaginable to conceive of John Kerry as the strong man in the National Security Council.
This is the man who attended political catechism classes from the North Vietnamese to memorize and repeat their accusations against his country of war crimes in Indochina.
And Inter Alia ran for president in 2004, asserting that while he had voted to invade Iraq in 2003, he was not implicated in that decision because he didn't vote to fund the invasion once underway.
Perhaps Thomas Dewey would have been an upset winner in 1944 if he had proclaimed support for the D-Day landings, but advocated an immediate cutoff of funds for General Eisenhower's armies of liberation once they landed.
This just cuts Kerry to the quick.
I mean, John Kerry being where he is is the most out-of-place, irresponsible act you could conceive of.
And the idea that Kerry is in the position of strongman here is an indication to a lot of us that Obama is is not serious about we've got to you've got somebody who thinks that America's the problem and the world on point on all this.
But Conrad Black's piece along with Norman Pedoritz is a good piece, and as I say, I'm happy they're there because they like being joined.
And I wish more people would.
I wish more people would just abandon this formulaic inside the beltway analysis that everybody gives issues like this and understand what's really going on here.
It's plain as day everybody knows they're just afraid to say it.
Because like the Hollywood leftists have admitted they're just scared to death of being seen as anti-black.
Ed Asner, a lot of people in Hollywood don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama, but they are opposed to Obama.
They're just afraid to say it.
Now you would think that anybody, of anybody, who would feel free to criticize Obama on anti-war principles would be the devoted Hollywood left.
But even they, in their minds, their credentials on race are unassailable.
Nobody could ever accuse them of being racist.
Why they are liberals because of the civil rights movement.
But even they are afraid of being seen by others as anti-black if they are true to themselves and their anti-war positions.
And so I would submit to you that all of you wondering why there's no opposition to Obama.
You know it.
His race has paralyzed all opposition.
His race has paralyzed all opposition, political opposition inside the beltway, party political opposition, or Republican Party, you name it.
Members of his own party are whispering they don't like this at all.
I mean, the Democrat Party is an anti-war party.
They are being made to look like the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever, and they're having to swallow it.
Because they too do not want to run the risk of being seen as anti-black.
And so nobody, it appears, thinks they can be seen as just anti-Obama.
Being anti-Obama means being anti-black.
What of this colorblind society that everybody's always demanding, hoping for, wishing for, asking for.
Here's the opportunity.
Colorblind.
I'm colorblind.
I don't care.
The guy's president of the United States.
All that mattered to me are his ideas, his policies, and what he does.
I couldn't care less about his race.
That's the definition of colorblind.
And yet, that will not be permitted.
Go to the audio sunbites.
Basher Assad denied the gas attacks.
He was interviewed by Charlie Rose.
They aired it on CBS this morning.
And Charlie Rose, we've got some sound bites.
Charlie Rose said, to this date, Mr. Basher, you're not sure chemical weapons have been used.
Even though you've seen the video tape and you've seen the bodies, and your own officials have been there.
In the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations.
We're not there.
Our forces, our police, our institutions don't exist.
How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidences?
We're not like the American administration.
We're not social media administration or government.
We are the government that did with reality.
Oh!
Oh!
I know the guy is a guy is a brute, folks.
There's nothing that recommend Basher Assad.
But to say that how can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidence?
We're not like the Obama administration.
We're not social media administration.
Meaning we just can't put it on Facebook and Twitter and have everybody believe it.
We're a government that deals with reality.
We don't have anybody, none of our people are aware that nerve gas was used.
This is what he's asserting.
Charlie Rose then said, Well, Secretary Kerry has said that there is evidence that rockets were fired from a region controlled by your forces into a region controlled by the rebels.
They have evidence from satellite photographs of that, and they have evidence of a message that was intercepted about chemical weapons, and soon thereafter there were other intercepted messages.
So Secretary Kerry has presented what he concludes is conclusive evidence.
He presented his confidence and he presented his convictions.
It's not about confidence, it's about evidence.
Sorry, uh the Russians have completely opposite evidence that the missiles were thrown from area where the rebels controlled.
That reminds me about what Kerry said about the big lie that uh Coran Powell said in front of the wood on satellites about the WMD in Iraq before going to war when he said this is our evidence.
Actually, he gave uh false evidence.
In this case, Kerry didn't even present any evidence.
He took we have evidence, and he didn't present anything.
Not yet.
No, no, nothing so far.
Not single trade of evidence.
Folks, this is hard.
I gotta tell you.
This is hard.
Nobody wants to believe this guy.
But look what we're pres well look at what our alternative is.
John Kerry.
Take you back to the way Conrad Black characterized him, a guy who attended North Vietnamese catechism classes to memorize their complaints about the U.S. So he could come back home to congressional testimony and repeat it, which he did.
John Kerry, who accused Bush and Intel of lying about weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry, who accused American troops in Iraq of committing atrocities like terrorism and rape, beating down homes of doors and terrorizing women and children.
John Kerry said it happened.
He believed it.
And then to bring Colin Powell into this, if there were ever a man who was governed by his desire for an impeccable reputation.
It's General Colin Powell.
And here you have Basher Assad citing on CBS the most embarrassing moment of Colin Powell's career, when he was trotted out to present all that satellite evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and it turned out not to be there when we got to Iraq.
And uh General Powell has been I think that not alone, but it's a great explanation for why General Powell and his uh his aide, I forget his name, uh Lawrence, something or other, have been totally turned against Bush, turned on Bush after uh the second term and beyond.
And so here's here's here's Assad saying, no, he didn't present any evidence.
He presented what he thought he was confident of, and he presented his convictions, but no evidence.
And he said it reminds me of what Kerry said about the big lie.
Here's John Kerry doing the same thing Colin Powell did, essentially.
This is what Basad Bashar Assad's saying.
If Kerry did the same thing Colin Powell did, except when Colin Powell did it, Kerry just reamed him a new one.
And so here's Kerry doing the same thing.
Except in this case, Kerry didn't even present any evidence.
He talks we have evidence, but he didn't present anything not yet.
Not a single shred.
Do you think that you've seen evidence?
I'm just asking.
I don't know.
What do you you if you've paid attention to this?
You've you've heard Kerry, you've seen Obama and the regime, you've watched if you've watched any of this on television.
Do you think you've seen evidence?
How many of you are are dead certain that Basher Assad used chemical weapons on his own people?
I don't know.
Well, yeah, people are waiting for the UN report.
Yeah, that'll really bring confidence.
You got Putin with his hundred page report saying it wasn't Basher, that it was the rebels.
Really?
What are we supposed to believe?
Well, this is where, once again, I'm gonna run right in and say we believe what we know.
And what we know.
What we know, this is not speculation any longer.
Never has been speculation for me.
What we know is what Obama's intentions for this country have been since his campaign in 2007.
We know that Barack Obama and John Kerry and Samantha Power and Susan Rice and everybody in this administration believe that the United States is the problem in the world.
We know that they believe that the number one superpower ranking or status hasn't been deserved, it's not been just and they are presiding over an America in decline.
While saying just the opposite.
If you're searching for things, evidence, things that we know, we know that.
We know those things.
And from there we can make informed assumptions about what's happening policy-wise.
If people have the guts or the courage to do that, and that's what is not happening inside the beltway.
The formulaic analysis is absent any guts or courage.
They continue to analyze this as though it's just your average Democrat president and your average Middle East problem and your average conflict and uh standard American role and something like this, they're not looking at any of the known specifics at all.
That's why it's so empty.
That's why when you watch it, you don't feel like you're learning anything.
In fact, you feel like you feel like you're watching a mirage, you're being you're watching a well, you're being lied to.
You're being stoked by people seeking to be the smartest people in the room with their conventional analysis, absent any of the specifics that are really known.
So after Assad compared Kerry to Colin Powell and said, you guys can talk all you want about what you think, but you haven't presented any evidence.
They then had this exchange, Charlie Rose and Basher Assad.
They have shown the Congress what they have and the evidence they have from satellites intercepted messages and the like.
Nothing presented.
Nothing has been presented so far.
They have presented to the Congress, sir.
You're uh reporter.
Get this uh evidence.
Enjoy it to the public in your country.
Again, what are we supposed to do here?
On whose side are we?
This is uncomfortable and troubling.
I am intrigued here that somebody under attack is telling an American journalist, hey.
You're a reporter, go get the evidence.
Show it to the public in your country.
And see, this gets to something fundamental.
Charlie doesn't have any.
He's he's just doing what every journalist is doing, just relying on Obama.
He's relying on the Democrat administration, whatever they say is gospel, whatever they say is true, no questioning it never has been.
No curiosity, never has been.
No suspicion, never has been.
If this were all happening with a Republican president, I guarantee you the Republican president would not be judged as telling the truth.
The American president, if he were a Republican, would be accused of lying, having some personal desire here, or some megalomaniacal power that he wanted to use and achieve an objective he wanted to achieve.
He was going to send American troops in to die for his own personal wacky beliefs or whatever.
This is the kind of thing it'd be said, and these reporters would be trying to uncover every bit of evidence they could that the Republican president was lying.
In this case, whatever Obama says and shows did O'Kerry, they just accept it without question.
And so Charlie said, Well, I've seen it.
Evidence, transcripts, cables, uh, encrypted messages, back administration says Bashers is your reporter.
Why don't you go find it yourself?
I just there's a part of that that tickles me, I must admit.
So finally, Charlie Rose says, Will there be attacks against American bases in the Middle East if there's an air strike on you?
You should expect everything.
You should expect everything.
Not necessarily through the government.
The governments are not the only player in this region.
You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology.
You have everything in this region now.
So you have to expect that.
Now, folks, you may be shouting at your radio.
I haven't brought it up yet, but it's it's time now to introduce the latest player in this whole scenario.
And that is this.
All of a sudden, Obama is saying this is about Iran.
Starting last summer, Iran was not part of it.
Now, we know that Iran's the state sponsor of Assad and Syria, we know this.
But Obama's not said that Iran's involved here.
This isn't about sending a message to Iran.
All of a sudden it is.
All of a sudden now, since the previous efforts to sell this don't seem to be working, now all of a sudden let's bring Iran into it.
And I will explain that when we get back as we get into your phone calls.
And John Carey.
Detailing how unbelievably small our attack on Assad will be and gives him another week to put up or shut up.
We've drawn another red line.
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, has told Assad the attack is going to be really small, unbelievably small.
Just a couple of missiles, Basher.
And he's got one week to give up.
You gotta hear this, folks.
This is uh this morning in London, Secretary of State John Kerry and the UK foreign minister William Haig had a joint presser.
During the presser, Kerry said the following about a military strike that Obama wants against Syria.
We're not going to war.
We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without uh engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war.
That is exactly what we're talking about doing.
Unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.
Ratch's really gonna scare the heck out of Basher Assad.
What folks, this is who liberals are.
And yes, I'm on a quest.
I am on a quest for people on this radio show to understand who liberals are and what they do and how they think.
These guys, they really think huffing and puffing, drawing red lines and flexing their muscles is gonna scare Basher Assad.
And then he tries to assure Basher we're not gonna go to war.
He's Hollywood buddies and his uh Democrat voters, we're not going to war.
We're gonna be able to hold Basher accountable.
We don't have to put troops on the ground, anything like that, very limited, very targeted, isn't gonna be much.
I mean, this is you you declare this this overwhelmingly threatening evil, nerve gas, weapons, chemical weapons, all the and then you come back, but we're not gonna do much.
It's this is there was a speech Samantha Power made a speech at the Center for American Progress this past Friday.
Listen to this.
This is a quote.
We thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran, itself a victim of Saddam's monstrous chemical weapons, to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people.
This is an example of how liberals project their own arrogance and conceit on bad guys, their own arrogance, their own conceit, and their own we're good people.
And they assume that every thug in the world is just like them.
If they're treated properly, you convert a thug to a nice guy, and they're always shocked when the thug stays a thug.
I more on this in a minute.
Stand by, folks.
Your telephone calls are coming right up.
I just take a little more time than I had to make this point.
Two things.
John Kerry.
We have just spent the past two weeks with Kerry and Obama telling us what a rotten guy Assad is.
Chemical weapons, biological weapons, nerve gas.
It doesn't get any worse.
This is just short of nukes.
Guy's gotta be stopped.
Then Obama says, well, maybe in ten days.
And then only if Congress agrees, then goes plays golf.
Then denies ever drawing a red line.
All of this.
Then carry's out there huffing and puffing.
And what a dangerous guy this is.
And they've got the evidence.
It's it's it's totally conclusive.
We've got to get rid of this guy.
This guy's a scum after having dinner with him four or five times nine years ago.
At a posh restaurant requiring a jack and tie.
Jacket and tie.
After talking about what a reformer this guy is.
Now they're out there saying he's the biggest reprobate in the face of the earth.
And a joint press conference today with the UK.
Foreign secretaries.
Well, we're not gonna go to war.
Come on.
I mean, you were not going to war.
We're gonna put boots on the ground.
We're gonna be able to hold him accountable without engaging troops.
No prolonged effort, something very short-term targeted that degrades his capacity to deliver weapons is not gonna be a big deal.
Unbelievably small.
and then he's got a week to give up.
This is some kind of pathic.
Sociopathic, psychopathic.
I don't know, but it's some pathic.
Now, here again, what what Kerry thinks is gonna happen.
I either he's I think both things.
He's trying to calm down his base.
I mean, the left out there, folks, they really are fit to be tied over this.
They just don't have a guts to say so.
Congressional Black Caucus is being told to shut up.
The left is fit to be tied.
All the blogs you can't understand.
They hate this.
The U.S. going to war, a Democrat, anti-war president, John Kerry speaking positively of sending in missiles.
They hate this.
And so Kerry is trying to assuage.
It's gonna be a big deal.
Don't worry about it.
We're not sending troops in there.
We're not gonna get anybody killed.
We're just gonna send a couple of missiles, it'll be Really small and really unbelievably small.
And somehow this is also supposed to persuade Assad to give up.
And then here's Samantha Power.
Now, this is this is our UN ambassador now.
And she gave a speech Friday night, the Center for American Progress, which is going to be a bunch of libs.
I mean, it's this John Pedes's group.
This is this far left as you can get this much.
And she said, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people.
Yeah, we thought maybe a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran.
Iran itself a victim of Saddam's chemical weapons.
What she's saying here is she's being totally honest.
She's talking to a bunch of like-minded leftists, and she's saying we thought that we could actually convince Iran to cut Assad loose because he was using chemical weapons.
And that's so bad.
She's telling this to the mullahs of Iran.
She actually thinks the mullahs of Iran sponsor Syria.
And she's telling these liberals, well, we thought once we presented the evidence that he's using chemical weapons, that they would have cast him aside.
This is the most arrogance and conceit of these people and the cluelessness too.
I mean, the absolute this is just this is dumb.
This is the way they think the world works.
Be nice to bad guys, and they'll turn around and be nice.
And if you're really a good liberal, if you're really a good social uh liberal very concerned, you're compassionate for people, and it turned the bad guys into good guys.
That's what Obama was going to do.
The power of Obama's existence was going to turn these enemies into friends.
Remember?
This messianic complex.
They really believe that they're always, every damn time a bad guy does bad stuff, they are shocked.
After they've tried to engage the bad guy, after they have tried, you know, Obama says, I'll sit down, I'll talk to the mules with no preconceived conditions, because I'm the guy that can persuade them to give up their ill word ways.
And then after they do this, they're always Neville Chamberlain could not believe that Hitler lied to him, just couldn't do it.
These people on the left just cannot understand the concept of bad guys because they project on these bad guys what they think is their own goodness.
And that's another thing that's happening here that would fall under the rubric or category of uh cluelessness, incompetence, or what have you.
Now they've thrown Iran into this mix, which I'll detail and explain in uh in moments, but I want to get to some phone calls because of people who have been patiently waiting.
We're going to start Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
This is Joe, thank you for waiting.
I really appreciate it.
Hello.
Hey.
I got a question.
What if the UN or whoever is investigating this that determines that Assad did not use the chemical weapons, but in fact it was the rebel forces that perpetrated the attack.
Will Obama stand by his red line and use a limited missile strike on the Free Syrian army, or will he be forced to back Assad?
If it's the rebels that have been shown to be using chemical weapons, that's a good question.
Would he be forced to back Assad?
No, he wouldn't.
No.
At that there's a running commentary that is rooted in the belief that Obama's actually looking for a way out of not launching anything now.
Well, yeah, I agree.
I agree.
And and I but it's an interesting question.
If there was conclusive evidence that it's the rebels, would then Obama have to become an ally of Assad if Assad's people are the victims of these horrible weapons, which the Russians say is what's happening.
And don't forget, we've had our scholar source I mentioned a week ago, Joseph Badansky, writing a defense and foreign affairs, mounting evidence the White House knew and possibly helped plan the Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition.
It was just a week ago today.
Well, a week ago tomorrow, Tuesday, had the details of that story.
This man is a highly reputed scholar, Mr. Badansky.
And he said the same tactic that was used in in Sarajevo in 1995 is being used here that it's the so-called gentle, harmless women and children who actually launching the bad weapons to lure us in because they want Assad gone.
This is Al Qaeda, by the way, and related groups that want Assad gone.
And that's whose side we're on when we line up against Assad.
So the question is, well, what if there is conclusive evidence like Mr. Banansky sites well, he doesn't name the evidence, that's the one thing, which leads people to believe it might be Israeli intelligence that he doesn't want to out.
And then you got Putin saying, no, no, it's the rebels that are doing this.
Uh there is a growing don't how large there's a growing body of thought that it is the rebels that launch the chemical weapons.
Does that automatically make Obama an ally of Assad since Obama and Kerry so despise these weapons?
I mean, every civilized person does.
Does that mean we have to that that I guarantee if if it ends up that we do nothing, that's probably what has transpired.
If we end up doing nothing, which is a likelihood here, um remember, well, you think no?
We would be the laughing stock of the world.
What do you think the objective is?
That's the point, Mr. Pedoritz's piece today.
What do you think Obama's objective is here?
A nation in decline, knock us off that lofty perch of number one in the world, laughing stock.
Exactly what the doctor ordered.
It's Obama's second term, he'd get re-elected again.
Doesn't matter.
He can do whatever he wants to do now.
Especially if you win the 2014 midterms, and it's it's you know, all the restraints are gone, and whatever he wants to do for those last two years, there's no stopping him.
Maybe acting that way now.
But if we end up doing nothing, it may well mean that that the evidence has been shown conclusively it was the rebels, and after all that Obama can't turn around to become an ally of Assad.
No matter what, can't do that.
Not after sending Kerry and everybody else out there saying the guy's gotta go.
Red line, giving him a week now.
You know, what people forget is that Obama made that red line comment in the middle of the presidential campaign in August of 2012, and that was at the height of his tough on terrorism macho period.
And now that he's been re-elected, now that he's in his second term, and now that he's not ever going to have to undergo re-election, he's uh a little testosely challenged, if you will.
Seriously, he was flexing his muscles and drawing that red line during the campaign last summer.
It was August of 2012 when he drew the red line.
And that's when he's trying to tell everybody he was Mr. Macho, he's he's this is I d I I just don't see how they they can admit to being wrong now.
And never be able to maintain their the sanctions on Iran and North Korea if they did that.
This is a mess.
It's an absolute mess by design.
Still haven't discussed the way they're trying to bring Iran into this.
Uh Eric and Boise, Idaho, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Uh, first of all, congratulations on your book.
I can't wait to buy it and have my 13-year-old granddaughter read it.
Well, thank you very much.
It's a great idea, and uh and I look forward to reading it.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Um my question is this.
I mean, not only have we foolishly told the Syrians that it's gonna be a limited strike and it's gonna be uh short duration.
We've actually telegraphed the spots that we we may hit, like the command and control centers and the uh missile launch sites and things like that.
So what happens when uh Assad regime removes all their people from that and puts in women and children and we go over there and bomb those places and all of a sudden it's all over the news that the American military has killed a bunch of women and children.
Is John Kerry and Jane Fonda going to have to bash our military for doing that and maybe throw his Secretary of State bed over the White House fence?
You know, um that is an interesting question.
What happens when Assad removes all the people and puts women and children in there?
That's let me take this as a different direction.
So Kerry, you heard him.
He said we're not going to war.
We're not gonna send ground troops in.
We can we can we can get Basher to do the right thing with a very limited, very targeted short-term effort.
Who telegraphs what they're gonna do when how?
Who does that?
What if they're serious about it?
What people have got to understand is that when Kerry says that he's aiming it more for a domestic liberal audience that is unraveling behind the administration than he is at Assad.
But but even so, so i is he saying the truth, which is another question.
Is it gonna be limited?
Is it no troops on the ground?
Remember who these people are.
And they're incompetent.
They start these things.
Who do you think started Vietnam?
It's JFK.
They and and and who who expanded it was LBJ.
When these people start this, their ideological world view precludes them from making proper decisions in these kind of military men.
I'm just telling you it does.
You don't telegraph what you're gonna do, how big or small it's gonna be.
They really think that they can convert bad guys to good guys with their words.
They really believe this stuff, folks.
I gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbaugh often imitated.
Never equaled.
Here's Melissa in Milwaukee.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Ditto is from a long time listener.
I started listening to you the first week you were on WLS out of Chicago, so it's been a long time.
Thank you very much.
That's uh that that's like twenty, let me think twenty-three big exciting years.
It has been a long time, and it's been awesome.
Not that I agree with you 99.9% of the time, but almost.
I just wanted to let you know I thought I could provide a little insight in my humble way of why you your book is taking off.
I have three children.
They range from my oldest being gifted to my youngest having down syndrome.
I have been searching since my since fourteen for the last ten years for children's books that teach the accurate account of US and world history in an interesting manner.
It they're impossible to fight.
No one's doing it.
I have asked people at every bookstore I go to.
I go online and hours of searches.
I found one book, something called George Washington Socks, and it was a mystery where the kids went back in time to get, you know, like in a time war.
But that's it.
There's nothing out there.
It's sad.
It is, but it's uh it it it's it's needs to be it needs to be fixed.
It needs this this is something that you know I've and everybody else I know have been lamenting what's happened to public educ well, not just public, uh, but but education in general.
From from from kindergarten on up, particularly about American history, once the multiculturalists got hold of the curriculum, they were able to twist the founding of this country into the exact opposite of what happened.
And there isn't any truthful historical record unless you can go back and find some textbooks that are twenty-five years old.
Oh, I have a horde of Books that I have been keeping since before I had gotten married and had children, so in case I was never allowed to find these books again, I would have them.
And in fact, I remember learning about the first Thanksgiving.
And when our teacher in high school was discussing it, they actually brought up how they when they first came to America, they split up the plots equally.
And I even said that's socialism.
That's not right.
I mean, that's not fair.
If I worked twice as hard, why would I not get my share?
And the teacher told me that that was greedy, and that's not the way you have to play in teamwork.
Yeah, I know.
They they just it's it's been a it's been an abject direct contradiction of the historical record.
And the historical record, William Bradford wrote it.
This is it's not anybody's opinion.
What happened happened, he documented it.
They tried socialism because they thought it would be fair.
They tried it for all the reasons liberals advocated today, and it didn't work.
And they only really began to prosper when they got rid of it.
But Rush Revere in the Brave Pilgrims is about much more than just the real Thanksgiving.
It's it's about the whole pilgrim experience.
But I really Melissa, thank you, because I I appreciate your comment.
I uh the book is taking off for your reason and a host of others which are all good.
Uh well, they're problematic, but they're good in that we're addressing them now.
That's great.
Melissa Milwaukee, it's about time somebody did this because it's impossible to find histories that aren't skewed to the left, or worse.
▲
Export Selection