All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
September 15, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers and sports fans all across the country.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, utilizing talent on loan from God.
Firmly ensconced behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, we'll get back to the phones.
Well, we haven't gotten there yet, but if you're on hold, just be patient.
You're coming up, I promise.
The number is 800-282-2882.
And we welcome back to the program my brother David, well-known author and agent for many high-faluting personalities and celebrities, as well as lawyer.
And he's the author of this probably the book that he was intended to write his whole life.
This is the one he's been building up to.
Jesus on Trial, a lawyer affirms the truth of the gospel.
This is a pretty risky subject.
You're dealing with people's faith here.
And in many cases, faith is all people have to sustain them.
And one of the refrains is that it can't be proved.
That's the test.
So why'd you decide to do it?
Why'd you decide to write the book?
Well, thanks for having me on.
It's a big honor.
I have been studying the Bible theology and Christian apologetics, which means the defense of the Christian faith, on and off for years.
And just so happens that two of my great school friends, you know their names, I can't mention them on the air, and they also were high school friends, of course, and I were having dinner, our annual dinner.
And one of these two made a provocative statement to me.
He knows I'm a Christian, and I don't know if he was testing his faith by challenging mine or just being playful and provocative, but he made the statement that he didn't believe that a rational person could believe in Christianity.
And I've studied this stuff a lot, and I tried to respond to him in a brief time.
This wasn't the purpose of our meeting.
And in the end, I think I failed to even marshal much evidence at all.
It wasn't at the top of my mind.
I wasn't prepared to do it.
So I resolved after that that I would do a better job.
I'd study this stuff, get it on my mind.
Then within a few days, I got a call from Regnery Publishing, Harry Crocker, who is a converted Catholic, and he and I have had discussions over the years.
He's a strong believer.
And he invited me to write a book on this very subject.
A lawyer looks at the truth of Christianity and just do a book on it.
And I said, well, Harry, I'm really not equipped.
I'm not a trained theologian.
So I balked at first.
And I finally agreed to do it for two reasons.
One, I thought I might be getting providential promptings with those two events occurring in such close proximity.
I don't know that to be true, but I'm open to the possibility.
And the second thing is, I think coming from this as a skeptic, as a former skeptic, I can relate to those who are currently skeptics, perhaps better than a pastor or a trained theologian.
I might be able to reach some of these people.
Also, I have a secular platform, not as vast as yours, admittedly, but somewhat of a platform so that if I can reach people, maybe I can reach people in the secular world and produce some of this evidence to them and make a slight bit of a difference in their lives.
How's your book different from other books on, if not this specific subject, Christian apologetics?
I mean, this is quite an undertaking.
I mean, God – another question would be why – People ask this all the time in their own way.
Pascal, Le Ponce, he was driven nuts trying to find proof.
Why does God make it so hard?
Yeah, well, the reason I decided to, or the reason my book is different is The normal classical Christian apologetics approach looks at Christianity's truth claims.
It looks at the reliability of the Bible, biblical prophecy, the various philosophical proofs of God, the arguments for the possibility of miracles, and all that stuff.
And I did all that, but I also added my own unique take to it, which is my own spiritual journey because I was a skeptic and I wanted to trace how I evolved from doubter to believer.
And I also structured the book that way.
I didn't just structure it as a lawyer looks analytically at the evidence, but as an experiential book relating my experiences and saying how the Bible itself worked as its own apologetic to me.
Studying theology fascinated me so much and contains so much truth, self-evident truth, that I believe that the Bible itself affirms the truth of the gospel, and it's self-evidently true when you start studying it.
So I hadn't ever opened my mind to it and opened my eyes to it.
And I wanted to share some of these stories.
I call them aha moments, things that drew me into Christianity.
Some of the attractive teachings, Jesus' teachings and biblical teachings, I call them the paradoxical teachings.
They seem counterintuitive, but they are so true once you study them and dig down deeper.
I wanted to share these teachings to people because I think the Bible serves as its own apologetic.
That if you'll just give the Bible and theology a chance, you won't even need these other formal methods in classical apologetics, which I am supporting.
I included a bunch of that in my book comprehensively, but I also believe that we need to give the Bible a chance.
It tells us that we can become believers by reading and studying it.
That's its promise.
You keep using the word apologetics.
Would you clarify that?
Because it sounds like people apologizing for their beliefs.
Right.
It's from the Greek root.
It means to defend.
So we're offering the reasons in support of our faith, defending the faith against those who would attack it.
And there are plenty of those, as you know.
All right.
What was your biggest doubt?
You know, you remember a guy who used to be on a radio named Larry King.
You remember him?
Oh, yeah.
Way, way back, long time ago.
I remember when I was working for the Royals, I was driving home late one night, and I found this guy, Larry King, on the radio.
He was talking to somebody that worked for the Pope.
So this would be back in the 70s.
And he asked this emissary, like a PR person or spokesman, does the Pope have doubts?
And this guy said, yeah, all the time.
Which I found stunning for that to be admitted.
What were some of your biggest doubts about the truth of Christianity?
Well, some of my doubts were the problem of evil and suffering in the world.
Why would an all-loving and all-powerful God, a God who presumably could prevent it, why would he allow the kind of suffering we witness in the world?
And why would this God, we are told, Christians are told, the Bible tells us that we have to believe in Jesus Christ in order to attain eternal salvation.
Why would God base his judgment on our very salvation, on whether we believe something to be true?
Can we really control what we believe?
And I also, by the way, there's great answers for all of these.
Does your book do that?
Does your book give the answers here?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Very thoroughly, in my humble opinion.
And is Christ really God?
I had difficulty with the deity of Jesus Christ until I studied the book of John and where he unequivocally claimed that he was the great I am, the name for Jehovah.
Before Abraham was born, I am.
Not I was.
Not I existed in the past 2,000 years ago.
Before Abraham was born 2,000 years ago, I am, meaning eternal existence.
Clearly, he was claiming to be God using that term, the term that Jehovah, the Old Testament Jehovah used and self-identified himself.
And he was stoned or attempted to be stoned as a result.
So there was no doubt that he claimed to be God.
But coming to study these things and overcoming these doubts really did a great deal toward tipping me toward the faith.
So how did you come to accept this challenge of a loving God who, and I say this in quotes, permits such suffering?
Well, I think that the God of the Bible, the triune God of the Bible, we know because the Bible tells us that he created us in his image.
And that means to me that he created us as intelligent beings as distinct from all other creatures.
He gave us, I believe, free will.
Some of the hardcore Calvinists out there may disagree, but I'm fully acknowledging God's sovereignty and his control of the universe.
But I believe that he created us to have a special, intimate relationship, a spiritual relationship with him.
And that would not have been possible had he created us as automatons, as robots.
We have to have some free will in order to be capable of having love.
You can't command someone to have love in the genuine sense.
So he created us with free will.
And with that, creating us that way, opened up the possibility that we would sin.
And when you entered, and actually the inevitability that we would sin, because when you sin, it ushers in evil in the world.
And so for God to have denied the possibility of evil, he would have not been able to make us in his image.
But ultimately, you have to look at a few things.
One is, and this is not to diminish the suffering that people go through.
You can't just cite some glib passage of scripture and make people feel better.
No, you have to, but you do, in the abstract, look at the problem, the temporal nature of suffering compared to the eternal existence in heaven with God.
You do that, you look at that.
But the more important and more compelling reason, the answer for evil in the world is that God created us knowing we would sin, knowing that in order for us to be redeemed, satisfying his perfect holiness, his perfect justice, he would have to send his Son who would experience the very same types of suffering that we did, the excruciating pain on the cross.
And more important than the excruciating pain on the cross was his spiritual separation from the Father, with whom he lived in the Holy Trinity in eternity past in complete bliss.
He decided, knowing that we would sin, that he would come down and suffer all these indignities, the separation from the Father, which is unbearable, causing him to sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, and then take and accept the full force of God's wrath for all of our past, present, and future sins.
And he did that just so we could live.
So as John Stott, a theologian or evangelist, said, some people envision our God as sitting indifferently, apathetic to sin on a celestial deck chair.
But the God of the Bible is the God of the cross who was born, who became, became incarnate to come down and suffer every bit as much as we did experience every kind of suffering that we have ever experienced and way more than we could ever imagine just so that we could live.
And the ultimate answer then for suffering from the Christian perspective is the cross of Jesus Christ.
And that's what it's all about.
Talking to my brother David, new book, Jesus on Trial, a lawyer affirms the truth of the gospel.
I was in Israel in 1993.
It was basically a political trip.
But I took some time because I wanted to visit the Christian sites.
And I have never been more shocked than when I was taken to Golgotha, where they think Galgotha.
Now, my point in bringing this up to you is, here is something, Christianity, and of course the resurrection of Christ is essential.
The bodily resurrection of Christ is essential to the Christian faith.
If that didn't happen, then everybody's in trouble, right?
Yes.
So you would think that where that happened would have been noted, would have been marked, would have been a tourist, people could visit it and see it.
You know what it is?
It's the Jerusalem mass transit parking lot.
I go into this place and there's some Christians there from the UK that day.
And I walk in and I'm eager to see where Christ died on the cross.
And they said, it's right there.
And I'm looking at a parking lot with mass transit buses spewing their global warming emissions.
I said, no, no, no.
Where?
He said, no, right there.
That's where we think it was.
And I was just stunned that you can't find evidence in a physical sense.
It's made really hard.
That's why faith enters into this because people have gone crazy trying to find proof.
It's amazing that you've been able to do it for yourself.
And it's why I think your book is going to be overwhelmingly valuable to millions of people who are looking to find evidence because they want more than their faith.
And if you've done that in a persuasive way for people, it's going to be great.
I've got to take a break.
Well, we'll continue this right after we get back.
Don't go away.
Welcome back.
We're talking to my brother David about his latest book, Jesus on Trial, a lawyer affirms the truth of the gospel.
If I may say, folks, this book is rewarding.
It is confidence-inspiring.
It's heartwarming.
And it's impossible to explain it in a half hour on the radio.
But it really is, it's an amazing piece of work.
It comes across as a skeptic overcoming skepticism and proving to himself that what he believes is true and that it can be proven.
And that's something that so many people are looking for that.
If that's you, folks, this book is right up your alley.
Why are you, after all of this, so confident that you can trust, that all of us can trust the Bible?
Because you know it's a source of great controversy for everybody.
Do you mind if I hit that resurrection of Christ that you asked me about?
No, go right ahead.
Because that's so pivotal.
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is so essential to the Christian faith.
And Christianity is grounded in the historical fact of Jesus' bodily resurrection.
I want to be clear that.
So we Christians don't deny history.
In fact, the Apostle Paul said, if the resurrection didn't happen, then we Christians are more to be pitied than any other people because we're going to die in our sins and we have no faith.
We have no hope.
He fully admitted he was basing his claim on the true historical resurrection of Christ.
So when Jesus's apostles, when Jesus died, his apostles and disciples were dejected and dispirited.
They were cowards.
They had denied him.
They didn't really believe.
His own brother James didn't believe in him.
But then he appeared over a period of 40 days.
And there's no reputable scholar that denies the tomb was empty, by the way, or that he died a medical actual death.
He appeared to different ones of them at different times, 7, 9, 11.
At one time, 500 witnesses.
They saw him.
They touched him.
They ate with him over a period of 40 days.
And then they were transformed.
This is critical from cowardly deniers to bold proclaimers of Christianity.
And you say, well, what's the difference in them and those people, the adherents of other faiths or ideologies?
They died for their faith.
What's the difference?
Some still do.
Well, New Testament scholar Gary Hamermas says, like all other religions, of course the followers believed in the teachings of their leader.
But unlike all others, they had seen the resurrected Jesus.
So which is more likely that an ideology we believe in is true or that we and a number of others saw a friend several times during the last month?
We would rather believe in an abstract idea or our own eyes.
So if they had not seen Jesus after he died, if his tomb was not empty, would they have died for something they absolutely knew wasn't true?
It is inconceivable that they would have done it.
Christianity is based on the physical fact of the resurrection.
And by the way, it's not just this Bible that they say this in the Bible reliably.
We have proof when the Bible stands up, when subjected to the textual criticism compared to any other ancient book, that it is more accurate, that it comes down to us exactly as it was written.
Any scrivener's errors over the 2,000 years or over the years we see do not affect the substance.
So we have more copies, more New Testament copies, 5,800 copies, existing copies in some 19,300 in other languages of the New Testament.
Not as many for the Old Testament, but after the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, an amazing amount.
We don't have anything like that for the other ancient Greek and Roman documents.
Most of them, there's only 10 or 20 copies.
The Iliad, you have 1,800, which is less than 10%.
And yet everybody accepts those as accurate.
And they have been subjected to textual criticism.
The reason the number of copies...
Well, but look, you know why this is fought against so hard, because people assume Christianity is judgmental.
And if it can be proven to be true, well, that's a problem for a whole lot of non-believers who don't want to think of themselves in sinful ways or what have you.
Look, I've got one minute here, but I wonder who are you really trying to reach with this book?
I'm trying to reach fellow skeptics who haven't really given this a chance.
The Bible claims it has the power of converting people if they'll just give it a chance.
If you study the Bible and open your heart and mind to the Bible, I think you will see, like I did, that it is the true, inspired, inerrant word of God.
So I'm writing for those people, but I'm also writing to believers, believers who need their faith reinforced from time to time.
And I'm also writing for young early Christians Who just became Christians?
I put a primer on theology in here, kind of two chapters on paradoxical teachings of Christianity, because I think theology is its own apologetic.
It is so fascinating.
If you study theology, your faith will be enhanced.
You maybe even become transformed from a non-believer to a believer.
The Bible's the word of God.
Give it a chance.
It will shock your socks off.
It will knock your pants off.
I am so excited about the Bible.
I know I sound like a nerd.
I'm not one of these charismatic type of Christians, but I firmly believe the Bible is the Word of God, and I'm excited about it.
And I want to be contagious in my enthusiasm for the Bible to inspire a like interest in other people so that they can explore it and receive the life-changing benefits that I have received.
All of that is true, folks.
I've grown up with my brother, obviously, and I'm familiar with this quest of his.
He can barely contain his excitement overall.
This wants to share it.
Jesus on Trial by David Limbaugh.
Kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man and doctor of democracy.
Here in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball, people have been waving past.
I know you all are eager for me to get back to the monologue section of program, but I've got to get to the phones because people have been waiting an hour and a half and we haven't even gone there yet.
And we've got a guy from Brenham, Texas on named James, who thinks he's got an answer to the question I asked in the first segment of program.
Hi, James.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome.
Yeah.
1992 Dittos.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Yeah, the question you asked about the iPhone is, and the answer is that they don't keep them in warehouses like you were positing there.
You've heard of just-in-time inventory.
That's kind of what they do.
That's kind of Tim Cook's thing.
He doesn't keep a lot of inventory sitting around.
So when the new OS is ready to go, they may have a couple of days in the pipeline, but as soon as that thing's ready to go, it's in production.
And so there's only a couple of day lag.
Well, now, but here's the okay.
I understand that after things get up and running and the original demand has been met.
But they have ordered 80 million iPhones to be manufactured between now and the end of the year.
That is a given.
They started manufacturing one of these two new ones in July.
They know that last year, in the first weekend, they sold 9 million phones.
They had to be able to hand deliver, either at their stores or via FedEx, 9 million phones.
They didn't make those 9 million phones in one week before they were sold.
They were made and they were stocked someplace.
They have to get a head start if they're going to be able to meet demand on opening weekend.
So they started in July.
Now, maybe they don't put the phones in boxes and wrap them up.
Maybe the phones are kept until one week before shipping them out of China.
Maybe that's where you're right.
Well, you know, when you buy, anytime they release a new phone, for instance, that's why there's the lag between the announcement and when they're actually shipping because that's what they're, I don't know when the actual Goldmaster of the new OS was finished, but they're working around the clock over there.
You know, and if you've ever ordered a brand new iPhone, which I know you have, you know, a FedEx it to you directly from China.
Right.
And so that's, I mean, it's happening almost in real time.
They're churning them out as fast as they can.
I know they can make $500,000 a day.
But let me restate the question for people just tuning in.
They've got on opening weekend.
Look, they sold this past weekend just in pre-orders 4 million phones that are going to ship starting, well, probably now.
They're going to be delivered Friday.
4 million phones.
Those 4 million have to be somewhere.
And those 4 million phones were made.
They can't make 4 million phones this week.
So those phones have to be somewhere without an operating system on them.
Somehow, they've got to get the OS on those phones that are already made before they ship them.
And my question is, how do they do it?
It's a physical nightmare to me.
They can't plug every phone into a computer and transfer the OS.
So do they do it with Wi-Fi?
Do they have hundreds of thousands of phones in the warehouse before they put them in boxes and transfer the OS, the Goldmaster, which was released publicly last, well, it'll be publicly Wednesday, but last Tuesday it actually was in the wild.
It was given to developers.
So it's probably finished a week before that, maybe even earlier.
But my point is, from this point on, the OS will be part of the manufacturing process, but it isn't part of the manufacturing process for the first number of millions of phones.
And for those phones, I'm just wondering how en masse they get the OS on them after they've made everything else.
And it's got to be Wi-Fi.
It's got to be Wi-Fi in their warehouse before they ship them.
I don't know how else to do it.
I don't know.
I mean, the only thing I can think of is that, you know, that's why supply is so constrained on these new phones when they're first coming in.
You know, the stores, the Apple stores, you still only get a box or so a day for the first two or three weeks.
Right.
That's got to be why you're trying to catch up.
I don't think it's.
Now, that's a good thought, but I don't think it's the operating system that causes a supply problem.
I think the supply problem, I don't want to get too in the weeds here on this.
This is stuff people really don't care about.
But the supply problem is subject just to rumors.
Nobody really knows why they can't meet demand on opening week.
And I don't think it's the opening.
I don't think it's the operating system.
Now, 4 million U.S. 4 million worldwide.
I forget.
I think it's no, it was U.K. wasn't worldwide.
There were only a few countries you could order in advance.
And then the 28th, it's like 24 other new countries get added in.
So they've got to have stock for every country they introduce the phone in, even if it's just 10 phones for that country.
They've got to have them.
But to me, this is just a tech question.
It's not a manufacturing question.
It's really a tech question.
How do they get the OS on millions of phones at one time in a week before they ship them out?
Now, after this initial weekend, yeah, they'll put the OS on as manufacturing.
My point is they are building and finishing phones before the OS is finalized.
And so how they get the final finished OS that they're going to release on those phones made before the OS was finished.
And it has to be in the millions.
And I guess Wi-Fi in their warehouse is the only way.
My problem, I don't know how you verify that it was correctly transferred and installed.
Because if you, I mean, I've never bought a phone that didn't turn on when I bought it.
It's always worked.
There hasn't been a bug in the OS.
Maybe it has for some people.
Anyway, James, I appreciate your trying to answer my question.
I can tell by his answer, I may not be actually expressing my question in the right way.
But I'll tell you this about Apple's inventory.
This is stunning.
He is right about their CEO, Tim Cook, when he was the operations director.
I mean, this as a business proposition fascinates me.
Do you know that Apple get this now?
Aside from opening weekend, which is always of the phone, which is a unique period.
But after that is out of the way, just in a normal week at Apple, they turn over their entire inventory every three to four days.
That's how little inventory they have.
Now, to pull that off and to make sure that when somebody walks into a store and wants something, it's there.
And they're turning that inventory and everything's manufactured in China except for the Mac Pro, which is made in Austin, Texas.
But only three to four day inventory.
That's the envy of businesses all over the world.
Inventory is death.
Unsold product is death to the bottom line.
Three to four day inventory that they turn it over.
We tried to do that with 2F by Tea.
It's not possible.
You have to manufacture so much in advance, so many different flavors.
You've got to be able to have this and that when people want.
I'm stunned just in my little experiment with my little tea company here in inventory to understand with everything, phones, iPods, iPod touches, iPads, iPad minis, laptop and desktop.
everything they turn over three to four days.
Stunning.
Here's David, Detroit, Michigan.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
You know, I used to be one of these blue-pilled liberals who believed that women were all wonderful.
And I wanted to tell you about the thing that really opened my eyes to about fascism, and that's the fact that I was...
David, David, David, David, hang on, hang on, wait a minute.
What is a blue-pill liberal?
Someone who just accepts the stories they're told, doesn't ask questions, believes what the media and the mainstream tells them.
Oh, you're offshooting the Matrix.
The blue pill, the red pill.
I thought you might meant Viagra.
But anyways, I had married this girl that I met at church.
And a little bit after that, found out that she had been cheating on me, found some texts on her phone, all their guys.
And when I approached her about this, her response was to start hitting me and hitting me in the face.
And when she realized, because, you know, I was a good boy, I was just going to stand there and take it.
When she realized it wasn't doing enough damage, she went and got a knife.
And I had to pin her on the ground, call 911.
And as soon as the police showed up, she started claiming that I was raping her.
And when I bring this story up to women, the first thing that they say is, oh, well, you probably deserved it.
And when I bring up that, you know, she started making these claims, they say, well, you probably have been raping her.
You didn't even know it.
And it astounds me, these double standards that they'll put on men.
Ray Rice was a victim of domestic violence as well, but no one talks about that.
So I just want to thank you, Rush and Paul, for the red tilling I got on Female Logic out there.
Well, it's interesting you say that.
Years ago, when I was, it's still somewhat prevalent.
The stories I would hear from men who were going through divorces and in child custody battles, the lies their wives told about them, being predators, that they had fondled or abused the children.
And these guys didn't know what to do.
It wasn't true.
They had no idea how to combat it.
And I said, this is a large part of this is modern feminism.
You've got to understand what David here just, his story, what it illustrates, is that the modern era of feminism relies on a lot of accepted premises.
And the biggest one is that men are predators, that they're mean, in their natural state, they are brutes, bullies, and that women are endangered at the slightest bit of temper or anger.
This has been a tenet of feminism.
And it's like I asked earlier in the program, we've got this infobabe at ESPNW, which is their women's section of their website, suggesting that we need to reprogram the way we raise men.
We need to reprogram men, little boys, as we raise them.
Have you noticed that it's never ever suggested that we reprogram women?
As far as feminism is concerned, the problem in the world is men.
And they, in their natural state, are essentially incompatible.
They must be tamed.
They must be tempered.
Because men are naturally brutes.
They fight.
They sweat.
They expel gas.
They're dirty.
They get into fights.
Ew.
And we've got to somehow reprogram all of that out because otherwise women will be in constant peril.
And I am not exaggerating.
It's modern era of feminism has done such great damage.
This is why when I talk about the chickification of either the news business or football or anything else, some people think I'm joking or making half-hearted fun and little swipes here at feminism, but some of it's really serious stuff.
And it's, I mean, look, you never, ever, ever hear how women are at fault in anything.
Just like in this abuse business, he said Ray Rice was abused by his wife.
His wife did hit him.
I've seen, I've been looking at it over the weekend.
There is female on male spouse abuse.
There are women who hit their husbands.
But like he said, well, there must have been something that caused that because otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
The man in liberalism is usually going to be at fault.
Hey, folks, there's a reason why at most major universities and colleges, the female male enrollment is so out of whack.
35% male versus 65% female.
Used to be just the exact opposite.
There's a reason.
Got to take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
USA Today.
Are you ready?
Embattled NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell continued his push to show the league is taking domestic violence, sexual assault matters seriously, announced in a letter to teams and staff members today: four women will help shape the league's policies going forward.
What?
Anna Isaacson, the NFL's vice president of community affairs and philanthropy, philanthropy, will now be in an expanded role as vice president of social responsibility, the NFL.
The league has also retained a senior advisor's Lisa Friel, Might be Fryle, F-R-I-E-L, the former head of the Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit in the New York County DA's office, the co-founder of No More, Jane Randell, and Rita Smith, the former executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Those four women are now in executive positions at the NFL to help shape league policy.
on domestic violence and sexual assault matters.
Goodell wrote in his letter, we are continuing to develop our organization to strengthen our ability to address the wide range of issues we face, and other changes in our office will be announced soon.
Our goal is to make a real difference on these and other issues.
We know that we'll be judged by our actions and their effectiveness.
Okay, Joey in Austin, Texas.
Great to have you on the program.
Joey, how are you?
I'm doing great.
Dittos from the liberal Bastion of Austin, Texas.
Great to have you with us, Joey.
Make it count.
Okay, I hope you can hear me well.
I want to know the answer to this question, and I'm a longtime listener, so I think I very well do know the answer.
But I'm going to ask you, why has no one called out the prosecutor in this case?
You mean the Ray Rice case?
Yes.
Well, they have.
No, no, the prosecutor has an answer.
The prosecutor says, for all the circumstances in this case, this was not a case where the alternatives were probation or whatever or jail.
He said jail was not part of what was possible in this case, given the circumstances, that people who wanted more action from the prosecutor.
The law didn't permit it.
The prosecutor is being very open about this because people are asking and have been asking for the past number of days in a very focused way.
Like what you said, you know, the real point here is prosecution.
The real law.
Why did the real law do nothing?
And this prosecutor's name is McClain, I think, has stepped up and said, you people are misjudging what the alternatives in this case were.
And there wasn't an alternative where the guy goes to jail.
It's just that simple.
Use the tools that I had available to me based on the law.
And the prosecutor is a guy named James McClain.
And he said that first-time offenders usually aren't prosecuted.
But he did say that the alternatives, that the people out for blood, didn't exist in his world.
I forget what he said.
It wasn't a case of probation versus jail.
It was the alternative.
I forget what he said, but he made it clear that he did not cavalierly dismiss the case.
And we will be back.
▲
Export Selection