All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
March 13, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome.
It is Eric Ericsson, filling in for Rush Linbaugh here on the EIB network this open line Friday.
Hope you guys are having a good day.
The weekend is almost here.
The phone number 800 282 882.
You can get me on Twitter and on Facebook at EW Erickson.
Email me, Eric at redstate.com.
And as always, go to Rush Limbaugh.com for all the stack of stuff and podcasts, videos, all sorts of good stuff there.
You should be a member.
Subscriber, like me, and you apparently get a gift if you join now that I didn't get when I joined up years ago.
I tell you, early adoption sometimes has its negative downsides.
When I grow up, I think I want to be a Secret Service agent.
Sounds like they know how to party on the job.
We may get into that story, but I gotta start with Loretta Lynch.
It is problematic.
Poor old Loretta Lynch.
It is her weight.
There's worry in liberal land.
She currently has the bare minimum number of votes to succeed Eric Holder.
This from the politico.
There's worry.
She she's got it she's got fifty-one votes, it looks like.
Stuck right around fifty votes.
She hasn't gotten her vote yet, and liberals are upset.
They're they're claiming a double standard, of course.
They're already pulling the card.
Her supporters highlight that Lynch, currently U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, was nominated in November, and she's had to wait and wait and wait and wait.
Wait, wait.
Whoa.
She had to wait, she's waited until November.
Well, who was in charge then?
That would be Harry Reed.
Yes, well, at least the political is fair enough.
To point out that Lynch had to wait more than five months because Democrats chose not to ram her nomination through the last two months of Democratic control of the Senate.
But then she's had to wait longer than any other attorney general to get a floor vote once she cleared the Judiciary Committee.
Okay, let's get this straight.
Lynch, let me read you again the the the sentence.
Lynch has also had to wait longer than any other attorney general nominee to get a floor vote.
Once cleared of the Judiciary Committee.
Do you know how long she's had to wait?
Any idea?
Yeah.
Yes, years.
Years.
She's waited a millennia.
Jesus hasn't come and she hadn't gotten a vote.
Fourteen days, people.
Fourteen days she's had to wait.
And why?
Why she's had to wait.
Well, because they've well, they've been telling the Iranians what's up.
They've been explaining to the Iranians how the government of the United States actually works.
They've been voting on human trafficking measures.
Oh, poor Loretta Lynch.
Maybe if she was a coal miner daughter, she would have a cool song to go with her, but she's she's not Loretta Lynn.
Maybe had they tried to cast her as that, they could have got her through quicker.
Giving her her own movie or something.
Just some Republicans said that while they're undecided, Lynch's comments on immigration would be a factor in making up their mind.
Okay, I I got a question.
I realize the Democrats use the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster, but part of me thinks it would be fantastic if Republicans filibustered her.
You know, I always see the filibuster as a protection for conservatives.
I mean filibuster Loretta Lynch.
Make her get sixty votes.
Turn the tables on the Democrats again.
It would be beautiful.
I mean, listen, here's the thing.
Barack Obama nominated Loretta Lynch when he controlled everything.
He had the Senate.
He had the White House.
He didn't have the House of Representatives, but by God, John Boehner's so incompetent.
He pretty much had the House representatives because the Republicans were busy chasing their own tail.
So he nominated someone who was an ideological soulmate of Eric Holder, who told the United States Senate she really didn't think her administration of the Department of Justice would be any different from his fast and furious administration.
So filibuster her.
I mean or deny her the votes.
I I cannot believe there are Republicans who would vote for Loretta Lynch.
Frankly, here's my thing on Loretta Lynch.
Forget her policy positions.
This will sound terribly crass and unfair to some of you, but it needs to be said.
Forget her positions.
Forget her qualifications.
I mean, she could be she could be the greatest person on the planet, and Republicans should vote no.
And let me explain to you why.
That just sounds so mean and that nice, Mr. Erikton.
Let me explain why.
The Republicans have yet to explain to Barack Obama that there's a new sheriff in town.
They have not yet explained to Barack Obama that he doesn't rule everything anymore.
They have yet to show Barack Obama that they're willing to tell him no.
They have yet to show Barack Obama that he cannot run the government unilaterally.
They have let him get away with executive amnesty.
They have let him get away with Obamacare funding.
They have let him get away with numerous things.
They they're letting him get away with this deal with Iran because they refuse to use the power of the purse in the House.
Don't let him get away with Loretta Lynch.
You can say it's unfair, but there's nothing in life or the Constitution that says it must be fair.
Republicans need to learn how to stand up to Barack Obama, and this is the perfect way for Republicans to stand up to Barack Obama.
They should deny him his preference for attorney general.
If he wants to make her a martyr, big deal.
He's gonna do it anyway.
He's gonna browbeat the Republicans one way or another.
He's gonna try to beat them on something else.
The Republicans should make their stand on this domination.
She is not gonna be different from Eric Holder.
She is gonna be bad on immigration.
She is going to be bad on execu on investigating her own branch of government.
She's not gonna get a special prosecutor to look into what the IRS did.
She's not gonna get a special prosecutor to delve into Fast and Furious.
She's not gonna get a special prosecutor to investigate anything about this administration.
Nothing.
She is going to be a partisan hack.
She is going to protect the White House because the White House, Barack Obama, is her precious.
Just like the Democrats.
She is going to behave like Gollum and covet the ring of power that Obama wears on his finger.
The Republicans should reject Loretta Lynch as the attorney general on principle.
They should now I reali I know, stop laughing.
I can hear you people laughing.
Far be it for the Republicans to ever do anything on principle.
But now is the time for them to do it.
The if they're not gonna if they're not gonna restore the filibuster and filibuster Loretta Lynch, they should just vote no.
There's no reason to give him his pick for attorney general.
They need to make sure he understands he's gotta work with them now.
He's got to find people who are acceptable to them.
They are not supposed to just bow down and ratify his acts.
He is not a king, he is not Caesar.
He is the executive officer.
Sir.
What?
Oh yes, yes, yes.
She is black.
Oh yes.
I'm sorry.
I totally forgot about that.
That changes everything.
Yes, they do now need to bow down to Barack Obama and give him what he wants because they'll be racist.
You know, Chris Matthews.
Yes, yes, lynching lynch.
That's that you that'll be the headline on the front page of the New York Times where they supposedly tell the actual news.
That'll be what Chris Matthews and MSNBC call it.
Lynching Lynch.
That'll be the headline.
And the Republicans, of course, they're scared to death of being called racists by MSNBC.
Meanwhile, Chris Matthews the other day called Republicans racist.
They haven't even gotten to the vote yet.
They haven't rejected her.
They're going to call the Republicans racist no matter what they do.
Any opposition to this president is considered racism by the mainstream media.
Any opposition to the Democrats is considered racist by the press.
They might as well go on and bite the bullet and do it.
They're going to get attacked anyway.
If they confirm Loretta Lynch by fifty-one votes, they're going to be accused of racism because not all of them voted for her.
There's no win in the situation.
The only win they can have with their base, they might as well reject Loretta Lynch.
You know, there's a story the other day I saw.
Snerdley found it for me and I found it found it myself.
A bunch of white people had a white privilege conference where they were lamenting the racism of the Tea Party and their own privilege and how bad they are.
I mean, the Republicans not only will they never win with these people, they should not want to win with these people because they're messed up in the head.
Republicans should not want to win with a bunch of crazy liberal people who look in the mirror and think that they're racist because of their color of their skin.
It just oppose Loretta Lynch and fight on principle.
Speaking of principle, it's not just the Senate that's all messed up.
Let's flip over to the House of Representatives for a moment, shall we?
Louis Gulmer is going to join me here in a few minutes.
When we get back from break, and I want to ask him about this story.
Eric Cantor's former policy advisor is going out to the young guns network.
Remember the Young Guns Network.
They were the group that rallied and raised money to get a bunch of squishy Republicans in the House of Representatives to combat the conservatives.
Well, they're changing their name from young guns to the conservative reform network.
Which is a fancy way of saying they're left wing Republicans who want to reform conservatism to make it liberal.
Why?
Because Rush Limbaugh pulls the party too far to the right.
They want to wrestle it from conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and move the party back to the middle to pragmatic ground, the Conservative Reform Network.
Surely some of you on Twitter can tweet to me, a better name, the the initials are CRN, the Conservative Reform Network, the Rhino Network, I guess, the Conservative Capitulation Network.
These guys, they're going to go out, these are all Eric Canner aides.
Eric Canner who got beaten by my hero Dave Bratt in Virginia, who's gone out to be a lobbyist, and now his aides are leaving Congress because they're upset that the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works at others are daring to propose conservative policy and issues.
They're upset that Rush Limbaugh continues to stand at the vanguard of the party, keeping it on the right side of history.
No, they want to stand athwart history and yell, go left, young man.
Eric Erikson, in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be back with Louis Golmer.
Welcome back, Eric Erikson in for Rush Limbaugh.
Joining me now on the EIB network, one of my favorite members of Congress from the greatest state of Texas, Louis Golmert.
How are you, Congressman?
Well, as far as I know, I'm okay, Eric.
Uh better talking to you and have uh really enjoyed listening to you, actually.
Well, I appreciate it.
Well, like one of the callers said, Gee, I'd rather be targeted to Rush.
Hey, you're talking to Eric uh pretty darn good.
It's not Rush, but that's pretty darn good.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate it.
I and I loved your opening monologue.
And you know, we gotta it's a shame, but we gotta keep hammering home this point that it's not a small root uh group of radical Republicans who have hijacked the party, and nothing indicates that better and shows more conclusive proof than the vote on the DHS funding that didn't stop amnesty.
You had a hundred and seven a hundred and sixty-seven guys that voted uh against that because it didn't stop amnesty as we had promised, as the speaker had said, we'll fight tooth and nail, we're not gonna let the Senate jam us.
All those promises made, there were 167 that voted against that, and only 75 voted for it.
And make no mistake, there are some of those 75 that represent very conservative districts that have been hearing from their constituents about their vote.
But also, I understand they were part of the 167 that that had to apologize to the speaker.
I'm really sorry to vote against you on this, but my district is making it clear, I've got to vote this way.
The point is, Eric, that those people represent very conservative districts, and some of the 75 do too.
So it's not the radical right wing that's hijacked the party, it's a very small group of moderates, and I'm glad they're there from you know, Northeast uh U.S. I'm glad they're there.
I support them.
We need them, but don't make the rest of us vote against our districts.
Let us represent our districts.
Yeah, you know, what was so interesting about that vote is the the talking point, even from the leadership of the Republican Party, was that the party had been hijacked by the small group of conservatives who were causing all sorts of problems.
You and Jim Jordan and Massey and Breidenstein and and the rest of you were just causing havoc.
And then suddenly a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives are opposed to that funding and kind of exposes the light of the talking point.
Well, I mean, you've talked about it.
I mean, that's you made the point again.
We won in November by taking this position against amnesty.
How do they not get that?
But uh anyway, we uh we still have the same leader we had that that is caved over and over, whether it's debt ceiling, whether it's uh, you know, creating a super committee that wasn't gonna work, as was said in advance.
I mean, right down the line, we caved over and over.
Uh you g you could even go back to the lame duck session after 2020 election when we won the majority back.
Uh heck, we were giving away more money than virtually any lame duck.
It was just incredible.
Congressman, look I gotta ask you something, and you've been around there for a while, and we was discussing this with uh one of your colleagues the other day who's uh is is new to Congress and he's got a theory that a lot of the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress, they were there uh after the ninety-four Gingrich Revolution, and they remember the media beating them over the shutdown, and they feel like they lost.
And they've been so shell-shocked ever since that they've they've the leadership that that caused the shots now, has never really picked themselves back up, dusted themselves off and said it's time to fight again, that they are perpetually in nightmare over what they perceive as a terrible loss of ninety-six, which when you actually look at the ballot box wasn't a loss for Republicans, but they're convinced that it was because the media said it was, and they will not fight today.
And it was after the shutdowns that they finally got a balanced budget, they got welfare reform.
They did really some of the best things that have happened in the last twenty-five years, and uh yes, so they forget that.
I I don't know.
I think that uh when you get in leadership, and I've heard this from somebody that used to be in leadership, all you care about is just getting by without major confrontations because you know that major confrontations put your leadership position at risk.
Because let's face it, it it takes people willing to take risk in leadership position to stand firm on positions that people elected us for.
And so, you know, if the number one goal is to keep your position in leadership, you want to avoid a shutdown, you want to avoid a showdown, you want to just try to keep getting by, and I hate the proverbial expression, but kicking the can down the road.
But we do just keep putting off, putting off, putting off, making important decisions.
In the meantime, the young people of America are becoming more and more at risk for their futures because we are using the money from their futures to to fund our present, and it's immoral.
But what's what's even worse is now we have this new group that's out here that uh Carl Rove, I understand may have been behind part of it, but you've got some Boehner former staffers and others who are coming after so far they've uh they've had buys in twelve of our districts blasting us for not getting on board for you know, they don't have to be a good thing.
This for for the listeners who may not know, this is the the apparently Boehner orchestrated uh advertising campaign against conservatives for daring to not want to fund executive amnesty, claiming that they're helping terrorists.
Well, he says, gee, he thinks it's a bad idea, but it's the people that used to work for him that are running it, and uh so I I think he could have some say if he wanted it.
But but yeah, and and their staffers said after the uh challenge for speakership, which we nearly had.
We were nearly there.
But uh anyway, they said there would be retribution, but because of the public was so against the speaker that that would have to come instead of in days, it would have to come over, you know, months.
And so this is kind of what's happening now.
But but that's that's why you know I've got a a PACO conservative GOH conservative.com where we're trying to make a difference, and you know, it people have got to get engaged, and uh it it takes the phone calls, it takes money, it takes people are gonna have to be vocal.
Congressman, I uh we we're rapidly running out of time here.
Uh look, I appreciate you taking the time to come on the Rush Limbaugh show and talk to me, as Reagan said back in the day, if you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
Well, that's what we're doing, and you're helping tremendously here.
Thank you very much.
Congressman Louis Gulmert from the greatest state of Texas.
When we come back, well, we have y just we're getting to all sorts of stuff.
Welcome back, Eric Erikson here on the EIB Network Infrarus this open line Friday, total brain freeze at the end of the Louis Goldmert segment, because I was looking for the story I wanted to get to, and I looked down and it wasn't there.
It had fallen on the floor, and I couldn't figure that out.
I wanted to go back to you benevolent sexists who were listening, listening.
The phone number, by the way, 800-28282.
Get me on Twitter and Facebook, E.W. Ericsson.
Media Matters, thank you for listening.
You're already upset with me today for daring to tell it like it is.
This study, this is from the Daily Caller.
Claims that if you're kind to women, you are a sexist.
Whether you know it or not, you're a sexist.
The study conducted by Jin Go and Judith Hall published in the journal Sex Rolls.
Is that like fifty shades of gray or something?
Defines benevolent sexism as the chivalrous belief that women are warm yet incompetent.
Women are portrayed as pure and warm, yet helpless and incompetent beings who require cherished protection from men.
Benevolent sexism asserts men's power through paternalistic affection rather than dominance.
And these affectionate behaviors may be insidious because they are not necessarily negative on the surface.
There is some feminist and comfortable shoes out there right now listening to this saying, you know that's true.
Every time they open the door for me, it's because they think I'm weak.
I'm bigger than they are, and my shoes are more comfortable.
I I just you know the the left, feminists in particular, have spent something like 30, 40 years now trying to tell boys not to be boys.
I was reading a website the other day.
Rush and I read a lot of the same tech sites, and you know there's that that Pixar movie coming out this summer, and of the girl and it's it's oh I forget the name of the movie, but it's it's you can the hormones in her body are all characters and whatnot, and the emotions are all characters and people are lamenting that the first trailer, it conformed to gender stereotype, but this trailer, it it doesn't do that.
I you know, there are there is this thing called a boy.
And there's this other thing called a girl.
And they're different.
And I realize that the left thinks that you can decide which one you are.
You can't.
It's anti-science to think that, by the way.
Boys and girls are different.
And when society was telling boys that you need to protect girls, well, boys knew what they needed to do.
They've got these muscles and they grow and their voice deepens, and they're going to protect girls.
And girls were told, you know, you're actually smarter than they are.
Be subtle about it, and you can control everything.
Well, at some point they decided to tell the boys, you can't behave like a boy anymore because that's mean and sexist.
And they told the girl, you should forget about subtlety.
Now just beat it over their head that you're in charge.
Well, and and just clashing war of the sexes.
It it is not the way a healthy society should behave, by the way.
And so now we've gotten to a point.
Boys don't know what to do.
Boys have no idea how to be boys.
Boys have no idea how to behave.
If they're if they're good gentlemen and they open the door, well, that's sexism.
If they're bad and they don't open the door, well, that's sexism.
There's no way for them to win unless they cease to exist.
And the feminists have stacked the deck in the in their fashion to, I guess, make that happen.
Meanwhile, you've got this story about the the sailors on the submarine who were passing around pictures of the female officers in various states of undress.
Every person in the world who is normal and understands you don't pick your gender said this is gonna happen when you put a bunch of women on a submarine with a bunch of young men who don't see the sun for six months, guess what's going to happen?
Stuff like this.
Now they're being prosecuted for essentially being young men in a submarine, doing what young men and submarines do.
The world has come unordered.
And the left wants to have it every which way but right.
If if you behave like you're supposed to behave as a young man, you're sexist.
If you behave badly, you're a misogynist.
I I guess they just want all the guys to get out of the way.
Meanwhile, Gloria Steinem, I read, is going over to the demilitarized zone in Korea, and she's going to walk across the DMZ into North Korea to demand reunification of North and South Korea.
This could literally blow up in her face if she's not careful.
And it's not like this is gonna happen.
I mean, in addition to not recognizing that boys are boys and girls are girls and they are different and complementary of each other, they can't recognize evil, these feminists going into North Korea.
An evil regime, and they're not willing the only people who are evil anymore are white Christian men with an R after their name in Congress.
That that is the class of evil to feminists.
It's crazy.
It really, really is.
The world is upside down.
Let's go back to the phone, shall we, here on this open line Friday.
Edward McLean, Virginia, you're up next.
How are you?
Hey, Eric, good day.
What's going on?
Hey, uh yeah, I was just thinking of that report.
Maybe they're talking about Barack Obama when he calls female reporters at a press conference, sweetie.
Yes.
Um sexist because he's a Democrat.
Yeah.
Right.
I I see you share my cynicism.
It's like Bill Clemen, come on.
Bill Clinton and all he did, and the feminists thought he was awesome because he advanced their agenda.
Exactly what agenda is being advanced by that behavior.
I have no idea.
Yeah.
That's not why you called though.
That's not why I called.
Uh you know, I had a question or I'd like to get your comment or idea on this.
Uh you know, I think that conservatism maybe has a branding problem.
And uh and and it's in maybe in multiple ways, but I'm just saying in particular the word conservatism.
I you know, I'm not was not always associated with the Republican Party and conservatives, but I am pretty vigorously now, but I feel that if the the word conservatism and the the way it's branded is too nebulous and it is able to be not only distorted, but it's able to be p pigeonholed to be something that it isn't.
Because when I when I think of uh conservatism and I think of the history of our nation all the way back to to its founding, we're more talking about individual liberties.
And we are uh we are how do we how do we best maintain these liberties so that we all might live the life that we choose to live for ourselves?
And so I when I hear the word conservative, it kind of has connotations.
It implies certain things that maybe fairly or unfairly are there, and some of them might be— Well, you know, first of all, let me say, Edward, that hallelujah, that conservatism is to some degree able to be hijacked.
No one wants to hijack liberalism.
No one wants to hijack progressivism.
No one is going out there saying something is progressive that isn't.
People are going out saying something is conservative when it isn't, and that, to me, suggests that conservatism is just enrooted in our souls and our fiber as Americans in a way liberalism and progressivism isn't.
You're right.
People have hijacked conservatism and have said things are conservative that aren't necessarily conservative.
I don't think the goal is to rebrand conservatism.
I think the goal is to wrestle back conservatism from the people who have tried to hijack it.
I think if you go the route of individualism, most people will hear libertarianism, and while libertarianism is a foundational part of conservatism, I don't think they're the same thing.
I think that we've got to, as an ideological cause, not a party, and part of the problem, problem is that too many conservatives decided that conservatism and the Republican Party were the same thing when George Bush was elected.
And only now are we really starting to see conservatism's conservatives break away from that.
I think we got to stand up and say what is and is non conservative.
That's one of the awesome things Rush Limbaugh does regularly is say this isn't conservative.
What these Republicans are doing is it.
But I think it speaks volumes about how much conservatism stands at the root of this nation that no one's hijacking liberalism and progressivism to do something else.
They're only hijacking conservatism to try to make it something it's not, because deep down in the soul, in the fiber, in the heart of this nation, the very American revolution was a conservative revolution wanting to go back to the rights of the glorious revolution of of 1688 and bring them forward.
We have been and are a conservative people, which is why they want to hijack conservatism, not progressivism.
Eric Eriksen in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be back.
The line connecting us just screamed at me for a minute.
Technology doesn't work for me today.
Welcome back, Eric Erikson Infrarush Limbaugh on the EIB network.
It is open line Friday, 800-282-882.
As always.
What?
Oh, are we really okay?
You don't like me talking about my cooking, but we I can talk about Apple stuff.
I mean, Rush and I are trading emails about this all the time, and I think I'm probably maybe possibly going to get one, maybe.
I'm in the cult.
I you know, listen smart Alec.
I I'm sure there will be a recipe app so I can stand in the kitchen and cook and look at my watch for the next steps and ingredients.
I have a great cooking app on my iPad, I'll have you know, with the timer and the grocery list and everything.
I think I'm gonna get an Apple Watch.
And I I for the longest time didn't think I was, and then when they started guessing the prices, thought, good Lord, I'm not gonna get a watch.
I just bought a nice tag.
I I got a bonus and finally wanted a grown-up watch, but you know, I may get the base one for for going to the gym and running and stuff, and uh it it's not gonna die on me like all the other little uh things on your wrist have died so quickly, I wouldn't think.
And it's kind of awesome.
What?
Who who probably Sturdley and Brian want to know who I'm running from.
You know, I I have decided I'm not yet forty, and I probably should be going to the gym and eating better and stop eating like I'm in high school.
I really so I'm by the way, this this total eating thing.
I'm coming in today on the interstate to the studio.
I'm in Atlanta, and PETA has put up a billboard that says chickens can't live with wings.
You can be vegan.
I thought of you immediately, Snerdley, of course.
Right across from it was a giant Chick-fil-A billboard.
It's fantastic.
I mean, uh I good luck with that, PETA, trying to convince people to give up meat and become a vegan.
I guess some people do, but not me.
I like to I I'm having pork chops for supper tonight.
All right.
We gotta move on here, Snerdley High.
I'm I'm getting that Apple Watch.
I'm not getting the gold one.
You know Rush will get the gold one.
I'm I'm not paying that much for a watch.
I don't have that much.
My wife would divorce me.
Richard in Portland, Maine.
We've I didn't know Maine had phone lines.
Congratulations, Richard.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Not only do we have phone lines, I don't even have a smartphone.
I just have a phone line.
Oh, God bless you.
You know, my wife and I are the last of our friends to still have a landline phone.
Well, you said you're almost but not quite 40.
I'm almost, but not quite eighty.
Wow.
Well, thank you for calling.
I get a really annoyed with people like Holder and Obama and people like this saying things, and then they get quoted by talking heads like Kirsten Powers, and nobody questions the basic fact.
And he said, for example, that Ferguson is seventy percent black, and 90% of the tickets are given to blacks.
So this means on the face of it, it shows the Ferguson Police Department is discriminatory toward blacks.
It shows nothing of the kind.
No, it doesn't.
What you need to know is what is the percentage of foot foot and car traffic on the street in Ferguson.
Do the thirty percent of whites stay home?
Do they shop somewhere else?
Do they spend as little time in Ferguson as they have to?
You would have to know that.
And I I'm not suggesting what the cause of that might be or speculating.
But you have to know that information before you have a uh uh a statistic that you can rely on.
Right.
Ninety percent of the foot traffic and car traffic is black, 90% of the traffic tickets would be perfectly normal.
There's no discrimination.
Well, there's a lot of data we don't know, and the left likes to hide behind these statistics of of racial discrepancy, and and when you break them down, there often is not a lot of there there.
That they get a talking point out of it, and it disrupts you.
You know, one of the one of the issues, one of the problems I think we as a country face is the left has worked very, very hard to weaponize race in the country.
They they find things to I this is not to say there's not racism in the United States, by the way.
I I I know there is.
I I've got friends, black friends, who cannot catch a cab.
Uh cab driver who often is is from a third world country will not take a c will not pick them up in a cab.
I've seen a friend of mine get handed luggage at a hotel because he was in a suit.
I I I know that there is racism in the country.
I don't believe it's as pervasive as the as the left would think it is or claim it is, but the problem is, and the reason we can't get to addressing these causes is that way too many people profit from keeping the wounds open.
I mean, the Democrats have weaponized race in the United States of America.
They have an entire class of people convinced that if Republicans win the White House, that they will be forced into chains and be forced to pick cotton.
I mean, these are claims that are made behind the scenes in politics in America.
No right thinking person should believe those things, but it gets repeated so often at some point you begin to believe the lie.
They have weaponized it.
They use statistics, they fabricate statistics to make claims that continue to keep the lie alive.
And then you've got people like Al Sharpton going out there and demanding money, wanting money to fund his organizations.
There are way too many people in this country who make money off keeping racial wounds alive for this country to ever move beyond.
I keep thinking that there will be a generation of young people, and I see it to some degree, even where I live in Macon, Georgia, I I see that younger people of uh uh of various races, they're not weighed down by the baggage of their parents on this issue, but there are still way too many people who profit from racial wounds in this country.
Eric Erikson, in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be back.
Welcome back, Eric Erikson in for Rush Limbaugh, open line Friday, 800-282-2882.
Hey, how about we go to Lincoln, Nebraska and talk to Roger?
Roger, welcome to the EIB network.
Oh, Mr. Erickson, thank you for taking my call.
And greetings from the Heartland and flyover country where the Democrats hate us and the Republicans take us for granted.
Pretty much well said.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to make a comment, my observations on the latest uh, be quick, you got less than a minute.
Go ahead.
Real quick.
I just wanted to make my uh comment and observation on the Democrats and their uh more on the Republicans and calling them traitors.
Sir, it was my privilege to serve 22 years in the United States Army, three years in the Middle East, two years in Iraq, and I will always remember to this day, sitting in the D fact, the dining facility at Camp Victory, Baghdad Iraq, listening to CNN and hearing Harry Reid tell us that the war was lost.
Sir, the air literally was removed from the room.
Well, you know, Roger, thank you very much for your service and and for that.
That's a great point.
Um I'm I would try to make to Mark at the first hour, Mark from Manhattan.
Thanks very much for that.
Uh, when we come back, we gotta move on.
I've got about ten seconds here, Roger.
When we come back, I gotta get into Howard Dean and Rahman Manuel.
▲
Export Selection