All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
May 6, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, yeah, I saw that, and I I'm right now ready to comment on it.
Exactly right.
I see everything.
Just give me time, we'll get to it.
That's right.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Great to have you.
Rush Schlimb back at it behind the golden EIB microphone.
The EIB network at 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, we are breathlessly awaiting the White House reaction to new developments in the Texas terror attack.
As I say, breathlessly awaiting.
Well, the media is breathlessly awaiting.
Also, it continues to go bad for Bill and Hillary.
And you know why it's going bad for Bill and Hillary?
It's because, like I told you at the very outset of this, they are stuck in the 90s.
They are trying to use the same things that smoked the media in the 90s today, uh, both Hillary and Bill, and it isn't working.
And you know the the main problem, everybody knows Bill Clinton's lying.
You know, taking the capital gains out there.
They went and fact checked it.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital gains taxes he's taken.
They're lying through their teeth, and they know that.
The reason that they're not happy, he's not doing it as good as he used to.
They're even saying that.
It's a Clinton isn't as slick as he used to be.
It's always been the case.
Don't doubt me on this.
The media's always known when the Clintons are lying.
Everybody has.
But they marveled at how good Bill was at it.
They were just dazzled.
You know, he'd be in a press secretary situation, a press room briefing or whatever press conference there's a one-on-one.
He'd lie to them, and they would just marvel over how damn good he was at it.
And they would call him one of the greatest ever.
And that's when we got stories about how telling lies was actually helpful.
Spared people's feelings and all that.
Well, what's happening now is he's not lying.
Well, hey, somebody got to pay the bills around here.
I said, of course I'm gonna keep doing my half million dollars page because somebody got to pay the bills.
And the media saying that's that's not artful.
That's not the kind of superb lying we have come to expect from Clinton.
So that the blooms off the road and it continues.
Ron Fournier today, Ruth Marcus, I mean, all these former Clinton defenders, no matter what, are openly expressing their concern.
Um and and real clear politics, Ruth Marcus here, Bill Clinton's damaging self-defense.
Oh, you know, somebody's gotta pay the bills.
Of course, I bet we uh we left the White House, we were broken and never gonna go through that again.
Of course, I I just I and and they're not.
They're just not willing to look the other way here because let's face it, the Clintons are older now.
And it may not be as uh natural and they may not be as facile at it as they used to be.
Anyway, details coming up.
Uh the reason we're waiting, the media is breathlessly waiting on the White House response to new developments of the Texas terror attack, is because they haven't called it a terror attack yet.
Or maybe they have in the last few moments, but from the moment this happened, it's wait a minute now, we can't jump the gun on this.
It got me to thinking about, oh, and have you in Baltimore, we've got some great audio soundbites come.
The former state attorney, who used to do the job before Marilyn Mosby, went on CNN this morning about a quarter to twelve, less than a half hour ago, and just made mints meat out of Mosby and the entire process that has been used to arrive at charges for these cops,
and the the info babe and the and the the uh the anchor at the the Kendall anchor over at sea, and it were beside themselves, and they kept trying to trip this woman up.
And uh she would make an assertion, you'll hear it coming up in a moment, and they what do you mean?
What do you mean it's just like I just told you?
And then she repeated what she originally said.
But but but how can that be?
What do you look at?
Just what I just said.
What do you not?
And they feature her repeating it again.
And they finally dumped out of it.
Because it wasn't going well.
The new attorney general Loretta Lynch has gone to Baltimore to meet with the bereaved family of Freddie Gray.
Do you know, by the way, in Ferguson that there is a memorial right there in the middle of the street where the uh gentle giant uh with the false witness, the guy who lied about hands up, don't shoot.
The guy who lied to the grand jury who ought to be charged, he's now suing.
He's suing the cop, and he's suing the city of Ferguson.
He lied about gentle giant being shot in the back with hands up, don't shoot, running away.
If anything, he ought to be charged.
He's now suing anyway, this memorial in the center of the street where the gentle giant fell.
Uh, sorry, attacked the cop and try to get in the cop car.
Some people are now making a move to get rid of the memorial.
It's literally in the middle of the street.
Some people are calling it an eyesore.
That's not going over well.
Uh, and it's impeding traffic and a number of things, and it's the whole the whole idea of removing the memorial not sitting well with uh with some.
Anyway, the attorney general has gone to Baltimore to meet with the bereaved family, Freddie Gray.
I don't think that she has met with the bereaved family of Brian Moore in New York City.
Do you even know who Brian Moore is?
New York City policeman shot in the head.
Yes, yes, over the weekend.
The uh New York Mets uh honored him pre-game.
He didn't even know who he is.
These are people on my staff involved in the news and the name Brian Moore.
None of this is important.
The name Brian Moore did not the head of this Brian Moore, Brian Moore.
Immediately started to think, okay, is another victim of the cops?
Well, who is Brian Moore?
What'd I miss?
No, he is a cop or was and was shot for no apparent reason.
And people don't even know outside of New York City.
Anyway, I don't think the attorney general uh uh met with his bereaved family, and I don't think Obama did either, even though he was just in New York City for a fundraiser and an appearance on Letterman.
And I don't think Obama met with the bereaved family of Brian Moore.
Anyway, got me thinking, folks, about the White House reaction to the terror attack in Texas.
In fact, the White House reaction to any terror attack in the U.S., have you noticed they almost always say right off the bat that we should not rush to judgment, that we should not jump the gun.
We should not automatically assume it's terrorism, and it's a local law enforcement matter that we really can't get involved in.
Now you contrast that with the way the White House reacts to any and all claims of police brutality against African Americans, like Trayvon Martin and the gentle giant in Ferguson and now Baltimore.
Those cases are never a matter of local law enforcement.
No, no, no, the DOJ.
I saw the mayor of Baltimore press conference today, proudly, happily announcing that the Department of Justice is essentially going to take over the guidelines of the local police department.
So here's another police department being federalized by the requirements of the Obama administration, which means stripping the police department of power, which means assuming off the bat that it's the police department that's guilty, and it's the police department causing all of these problems in these cities.
And there was the mayor happily announcing all this.
And I'll tell you what the conclusion is.
When you when you watch this and when you listen to these uh local officials happily Describe the DOJ getting involved in their local law enforcement matters.
You cannot avoid the conclusion that everybody thinks that the only reason people are in jail in these cities is because the cops are rounding up completely innocent people and putting them in jail simply because they're minorities are black.
That is the image that's being created here.
All of these police departments that the federal government has to go in and take over.
Why?
Because they're out of control.
They're out of control.
How?
Well, they're out there incarcerating, essentially, and killing innocent people.
There aren't any guilty people in these cities, but the police department is rounding up people.
That's the image that's being created here.
The assertion is the assumption is better word.
The assumption is that there's a whole bunch of innocent people that are in jail because of out-of-control police departments.
And the DOJ has to go in and sort these messes out.
What do you think is behind all these people that you complain about the percentage?
African Americans in jail versus whites in jail.
What are they always?
What are they assuming?
Or what are they implying or want you to infer?
They want you to infer that there's all kinds of innocent people being put in jail because of racism.
And that the and what?
Yeah, the the decisional racism, deck is stacked, cops, police departments are corrupt because of racism.
Police departments are out of control, and they are incarcerating the innocent.
They are incarcerating the not guilty.
And so as a result, the DOJ is going to go in and take over all these police departments and they're going to pull them back.
And you watch what happens.
After some time has passed, uh, when the cops have to practice restraint and let crime happen, because that's how you fix, is it not?
That's how you fix the stack deck.
Well, I know it's a black police.
Doesn't see that's the problem.
We talked about this yesterday.
The problem in Baltimore is they've got three black cops that are charged here.
It's going to be really hard when you get down to the actual courtroom phase of this case and a jury to make the claim that it is institutional racism that led to the death of Freddie Gray.
Anyway, I can't I'm looking forward to being able to plead the sound bites for you that I heard on CNN just a little while ago of the former state attorney explaining essentially the incompetence of the current state attorney.
Anyway, uh speaking of the White House reaction to terrorism, let me get back to this.
Just a couple of points on uh on this.
Did you see yesterday where Josh Ernest, the White House spokesman, said that the Garland, Texas attack appears to be an attempted terror attack.
He said it just appears to be an attempted terrorist attack.
Now, what more would it take to convince the White House that it was a real terrorist attack?
And not just an attempt.
What do you mean an attempt?
Appears to be an attempted terrorist attack.
After all, one person was shot.
Is it body count related to the terrorists need to get a body count up before it's more than just an attempted attack?
And needless to say, even though Josh Ernest did manage to say the T-word yesterday, terrorist.
He and the White House reporter still managed to avoid the dreaded M word.
Uh, Muslim.
There's no Muslim terrorism.
Yeah, there's some terrorism going on, but it was just attempted.
Appears to be attempted terrorist attack.
There was all kinds of qualifiers.
Of course, the regime hates to jump to conclusions, except about stupid cops.
Then that's a different story.
When there is the slightest allegation of any kind of police misconduct, it's automatic.
And it happened, and the White House Is out trumpeting it, and if they're wrong about it, maybe they'll fix it later.
But they have to be careful about what they say about terrorists, because there might be a backlash against peaceful Muslims.
But on the other hand, they can accuse the cops of just about anything, because there apparently is no risk of backlash against the police.
Bitter sarcasm there, folks.
I gotta take a break.
We'll do that and come back just setting the table.
Carly Fee Arena yesterday made mincemeat of Katie Corick.
I tell you, Carly Fee Arena is coming on, and I've got a Hillary is I have an actual soundbite here where a member of the media says that Hillary Clinton.
Now follow me on this.
Hillary Clinton is working hard to get to the left of Barack Obama and Jeb Bush on immigration.
That Hillary is working hard to get to the left of Jeb Bush on emigration.
Ladies and gentlemen, still thinking here.
I think a lot.
I think all the time.
My brain never takes time off.
I mean, even when I'm sleeping and I wake up and I realize I had a couple of brainstorms while I was asleep.
My brain never never takes time off.
I don't know how to.
And I have been thinking even more about this Garland, Texas incident.
Now, yesterday, I made a point about the selective application of religious belief that we are going to accept.
For example, the militant Islamists command us not to draw cartoons or any other kind of picture of the Prophet Muhammad.
And our drive-by media and the Democrat Party readily agree, ain't no way that should happen.
It offends them, and we shouldn't do it.
And when anybody does, and they get shot at, it's their fault.
To which I asked, well, now wait a minute, the same militant Islamists who do not permit the drawing of pictures of the Prophet Muhammad also do not permit homosexuality.
And do not permit gay marriage.
And we know what their attitudes toward women are.
Why don't we respect those?
Can you imagine if you turn on MSNBC, all you're gonna see is given the day, maybe not every day, but the odds are at least portion of the day, you're gonna see a total devotion to the concept of gay marriage.
Isn't that insulting to the Muslims who would be watching?
And isn't it then would it not be understandable if the Muslims watching decided to take some kind of action against MSNBC for offending them?
They're not tolerant of gay marriage, they're not tolerant of homosexuality, and you turn on MSNBC or C and any other drive-by media outlet, and all you get is total support for it.
Is not a is that not offending?
That are our Muslim friends in the in the viewing audience.
Why is there no concern for that?
Why when people draw cartoons of the prophet?
Oh, gosh, that's intolerable.
We can't accept it.
You gotta stop.
Oh my god, that's horrible.
But we can we can taunt them with gay marriage.
We can taunt them with women's rights and feminizism, and we can taunt them with homosexuality, and we are somehow not concerned about how that offends them.
My quad, where do we draw the line on this?
Where do we draw the line on those aspects of Islam that we're going to respect and not offend them?
And then on the other hand, say we don't care if it offends them, we're gonna do it anyway.
But that's not the totality of my thought.
I was also thinking about this.
The left respects and applauds militant Islam's effort to shut down free expression, i.e., the drawing of cartoons of the prophet.
The same left, however, demands that Christians, say Catholics, Hobby Lobby as an example, pay for health insurance that would pay for abortions and things that make them happen.
Well, by the same token, if the left is to be consistent, shouldn't Muslims be forced to pay for these cartoon contests.
Now follow me on this.
I'm just I am the mayor of Realville.
As such, I am possessed with logic, sometimes to my own detriment, because other people aren't.
But if the left says that Christians, despite opposition rooted in their religion, must pay for people who want to have abortions to have them.
If the left says that Christians must, say, like in Hobby Lobby, pay for any drug or whatever is necessary that facilitates an abortion, even though they have a religious opposition to it.
By the same token, does it not make sense that the left should be demanding that militant Islamists pay for these conventions that have cartoon contests of the Prophet Muhammad?
Now I know what some of you wait a minute.
Rush, do you realize what you're saying?
That's outright.
No, it's not.
I'm just, it's it's a logical progression.
If the left in this country can make Christians pay for people who want to have abortions when Christians oppose it.
My only quote, where do we draw the line here in areas in various different religions in what we'll tolerate of them and what we won't?
I'm just asking.
I'm not advocating anything here.
I know asking makes people nervous, and that's when they lash out.
It's what happens when you hit the bullseye, folks, they come for you.
Back in just a second.
L. Rushbow.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes, 800-282-2882, although it'll be a while before we get to the phones.
And I'm I'm not through with this whole event in Garland, Texas.
Something else, I just got a an email question.
Rush!
Don't you think Pamela Geller was a little bit excessive in trying to make a point.
What is the re why taunt these people?
Isn't it isn't it unnecessary?
And therefore, isn't she somewhat responsible for what happened?
See, this is the trick that's played.
And I've heard a bunch of conservatives in the media trashing Pamela Geller and her cartoon event as unserious and is unnecessarily taunting.
And it's almost as though we're back to a period where some conservatives think they need to demonstrate to liberals that they're reasonable, that they're not extremists like the rest of the conservative movement is.
For people that don't understand what Pam Geller is doing and what she is trying to illustrate, it's their problem.
The left does things like this all the time.
I'm sick and tired of any effort made to expose the left, either their hypocrisy or their terminal incorrectness on things, is always said to be unnecessary and potentially harmful and so forth.
And people are always complaining about the unfairness of the media.
Somebody like Pam Geller will come along and expose it in a means of trying to inform others.
And some say, no, it's unnecessary.
It's unnecessary.
Provocative.
It's drawing sympathy for the wrong people.
And I disagree with this profoundly.
Free speech is under assault.
Anybody that can illustrate in a way that makes it understandable is fine by me.
Free speech is my bidness.
Anyway, we'll come back to that.
I mean, I don't know that we're going to be leaving any of these subjects for good for a long time, but I've got to get back to Baltimore here.
I have to let you hear the audio sound bites from the former state attorney in Baltimore, Paige Croider.
Now before she was on CNN this morning uh about an hour ago, less than an hour ago.
I want to lead it off with An excerpt, Marilyn Mosby from last Friday in Baltimore, she announced the charges because one of the cops, lawyers, has demanded to see the knife.
Because Marilyn Mosby went out and made it clear in her press conference last Friday the knife that Freddie Gray was carrying was legal.
And the cops, okay, fine, show it to us.
They have every right to see this knife.
The cops lawyer has every right to petition to see it.
It forms the basis of uh one of the charges.
Freddie Gray was not in possession of a deadly weapon, that he was not in violation of the law, and therefore there was no reason to arrest him.
Here's what she said about the Officers Miller and Narrell then placed Mr. Gray in a seated position and subsequently found a knife clipped to the inside of his pants pocket.
The blade of the knife was folded into the handle.
The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.
Lieutenant Rice, Officer Miller, and Officer Narrell failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray's arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray.
Accordingly, Lieutenant Rice, Officer Miller, and Officer Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray.
Right, and now one of the lawyers, okay, show us the knife.
It's evidence.
We want to see the knife.
You have to show us the knife.
You know, this there are a lot of people, I think, and I this was predicted and predictable.
The on last Friday it was a euphoria because we had a prosecutor who wasn't a prosecutor.
We had somebody actually for the cause who ends up as a prosecutor, and she goes out and announces this whole procedure not as an instrument of the law or as an agent of the law, but rather as a community activist.
And the community cheered.
And she's out there saying, I hear your call for no justice, no peace.
Young people, this is our time.
This is your time, this is where we're going to make things right.
Or whatever it was she said, way beyond the bounds of what somebody prosecuting a case and presenting evidence for trial and explaining charges and so forth would say.
And there was this euphoria.
Now that's kind of uh calmed down, and people are beginning to look at this and realize you know, these cops are gonna have lawyers, and they're gonna have damn good defense lawyers, and these damn good defense lawyers are going to make mints meat.
Even if there ends up being a corrupt judge, and even if we get a jury like the OJ jury, where as far as the uh court of public opinion is concerned, we're gonna have some damn good defense lawyers.
Three of these cops are African American, which will make it really, really, really questionable to anybody watching.
What do you mean this is a case about racial bias and racial discrimination is Freddie Gray?
You got the one cop charged with murder is black driving the van.
Where's the racial?
You you tell me this black cop, these three black cops did what they did because of racial bias.
So she's bitten off quite a bit.
So CNN went out today and they found the former state attorney, deputy Maryland State Attorney Paige Croyter, because she had written an op-ed in today's Baltimore Sun criticizing Marilyn Mosby.
And you can't do that.
Marilyn Mosby is, as I said last Friday, she's now the the it girl.
I mean, she's right up there with Michelle Obama in terms of heroin, uh, political future, media in love.
And so here comes a former state attorney writing a critical piece.
So CNN had to go get her, had to get her on TV and try to destroy her.
It didn't work.
The infobabe in the CNN anchor team, Kate Baldwin said, You were blunt off the top.
You say the decision reflects inexperience, it reflects recklessness, and you also talk about political ambition.
Why did you feel so strongly about speaking out like this?
When you have a complicated case like this, and a volatile case like this, you have to take your time to get it right.
You have to take your time so that people have confidence that the charges that you are placing are not motivated by political ambition and do not reflect your inexperience.
In this case, two weeks is almost unheard of a case like this.
Now, see, that really bothered them.
Because Paige Croyder is essentially saying that the darling of the media, Marilyn Mosby, is motivated by political ambition, not justice, and is profoundly inexperienced.
And you can see the CNN anchor team, they were not comfortable.
They wanted to go.
They wanted to just destroy this and flick it away.
But Paige Croyder continued.
She did not use her own homicide unit to investigate this.
She was doing a separate investigation, which, by the way, will probably complicate her ability to prosecute the case, but she didn't use her most experienced attorneys.
She did not use the grand jury, which should have been a very important tool to her to swear witnesses under oath so that if they change their testimony later, they have an under-oath piece of evidence they can show to the jury to have ordinary citizens of that grand jury ask questions about what happened so she can get their feedback as to what questions are on answered and as to what their perception of what the appropriate charges would be.
She didn't do any of that, and she didn't even have the autopsy report until the morning she was announcing the charges.
Her mind was already made up.
Did all with the police report.
Speaking of which, the police commissioner, Anthony Bratt, came out and said he didn't even know until ten minutes before her press conference that she was going to do it.
The police commissioner didn't know until ten minutes before her press conference that she was going to charge these cops with all that she charged them with.
Okay.
So Paige Croyder has just detailed everything Mosby should have done and didn't do that is going to come back and haunt her case.
Well, this didn't sit well with CNN.
So Kate Baldwin said, You were with the state attorney's office for 21 years.
You're not involved directly with this case.
What is it about this that you don't trust this prosecutor to never ducks in a row before she brought these charges?
What makes you think she doesn't?
I just explained it to you.
She didn't use the tools available, she didn't use the tools available to her.
She herself is terribly inexperienced.
She never personally was involved in any cases of these magnitude.
And further of all, you can look at the charges themselves that tell you that she doesn't have her ducks in a row.
Her probable cause statement, which she drafted, and it wasn't a police officer doing it.
She drafted to establish probable cause for the arrest of these officers, do not support the charge of second-degree murder.
Okay?
That alone.
And then she has charged the two arresting officers with false imprisonment when there is a serious question as to whether or not there was probable cause.
And that will circle back to the knife among among other things.
Now, Mr. Snerdley told me uh earlier that uh he's been reading a lot here, and he's seeing a bunch of different places in the drive-by media where they're uh drive-by sister second thoughts about the competence of uh of Marilyn Mosby.
Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of that, but we've had two examples of it.
Wolf Blitzer and the esteemed estimable Jeffrey Tubin.
This is last night on the situation room on CNN blitzer speaking with their legal beagle, Jeffrey Tubin, about the mistakes made by Mosby.
And the blitzer leads with this.
The Baltimore Sheriff, the state attorney's office, they mistakenly charge two innocent people who happen to share names with two of the police officers.
And it's pretty awkward, pretty embarrassing if the city can't even get the court charging documents right, and innocent people are being harassed with phone calls from reporters and others.
Uh how will they secure convictions?
Right.
And then Plitzer uh sought an answer from Tubin, and Tubin uh provided the answer next.
This is an embarrassment.
We know that.
One of the officers has already filed a motion in court asking for production of that knife to show his lawyer asserts that it was in fact illegal under Baltimore.
So, you know, these cops are not going to just plead guilty and roll over.
They are going to fight this case, and that's just the beginning of what's likely to be a long and difficult legal struggle on both sides.
What do you mean, long and difficult legal struggle?
Well, we were all led to believe it's a slam dunk.
Last Friday, listening to Marilyn Mosby.
Why, this is all a slam dunk.
These cops are guilty.
Freddie Gray was totally innocent.
It was outrageous.
No justice, no peace, was going to rule the day.
And now it's going to be long and difficult legal struggle on both sides.
Hmm.
Welcome back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge.
With half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
And we are going to grab a call quickly here.
It is John in Chicago.
Thank you, sir, for waiting, and welcome to the program.
Oh, sir.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Um, I've spoken to you before, and I generally like to give you the opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual consistency and lack of hypocrisy.
And that is why I have called you today.
Uh you were saying that you felt it was wrong for anyone in the media to object to the uh event in Garland, Texas, uh, and that it was inconsistent for liberals to object to it because you feel that they don't express enough objection to things on behalf of Christians.
And so I wanted to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are totally consistent on this issue.
Uh, and since you feel there is nothing wrong with doing something to closing an event that is deliberately intended to uh offend Muslims, I wanted to ask you.
It was not defending.
It was not you uh it was not done to offend Muslims.
That's but that's I don't want to sidetrack you, but that's not why the event took place.
Now go ahead and ask your question about me.
Okay.
My question is would you similarly defend an event that was entitled Submit Your Best Cartoon of Jesus being sodomized.
There's nothing odd about that.
Uh Christians have already witnessed Piss Christ.
You familiar with that?
That's Andre Serrano and a work of art.
Traveling around museums at with the with a crucifix of Jesus in uh in a urine, vat of urine, and nobody protested, and there was no anger and object to it.
We ripped the lack of culture and art about it, but nobody protested Serrano and told him he couldn't do it.
Really?
You didn't object to that?
I objected to the left claiming it was great art and there was something to learn from it, but nobody made a move to stop Serrano.
There's been all kinds of stuff done.
Jesus Christ placed in, you know, uh models of Jesus Christ in elephant dung.
Way back in the 90s.
I mean, Robert Maplethorpe has done all kinds of stuff that you have suggested.
There hasn't been one riot.
There hasn't been one shot fired at any of these artists.
I mean, you're not on firm ground here, which is why I wanted to take the call.
You can't, you're trying to make a draw an analogy here.
And I'm telling you, you cannot, you cannot construct a scenario where you're gonna find the intolerance of Christians on a par with the intoler intolerance of militant Islamists.
You just can't do it.
But the premise that you called about with this business of the reason Pam Geller did her cartoon cut wasn't was not to provoke Muslims.
She didn't want to get shot at.
She wanted to get anybody.
She's trying to illustrate to people the double standard that exists and the precarious balance the First Amendment is is placed on right now.
Free speech is under assault, and too many people are looking the other way and not willing to stand up for it.
She wasn't trying to offend anybody or provoke anything.
She was trying to illustrate a point about hypocrisy.
And I think because she was successful in it, she has to be destroyed and taken down a peg and ridiculed and all that.
Anyway, I'm glad you called John out there, and I hope I passed your test from your perch of superiority and cocksuredness.
Try again any time.
Yes, we've had see if we had Piss Christ, which was Andre Serrano's fine work of art.
We were told that we must Study it.
And we must consider it.
We must learn from it and understand the rage that was behind it.
Crucifix of Christ in a jar of urine.
We've had the Virgin Mary in Elephant Dung.
All of this in museums, by the way.
And much of it federally funded from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Remember Carol Finley?
Whatever.
She's a performance art nude covered in chocolate with anti-Christian overtones.
Much of this paid for with tax dollars, otherwise it would not have had quote unquote funding or an audience.
We were told, as I say, to have to embrace Piss Christ in order to learn from it.
But the left refused to embrace the Passion of Christ, Mel Gibson's movie, or to try to learn from it.
Now they tried to trash and destroy that.
I remember those incidents like they were yesterday.
They all got museum placement.
And the media was out celebrating just how wonderful it was.
And not to mention all of the books and the movie that we were told in the mid-2000s that were devoted to the assassination of George W. Bush.
Don't reject these.
We're told this is art.
We must understand the intention of the artiste.
So the left gets to pollute our culture left and right, and everybody's told we must step back to try to understand it.
I have to take a break, my friends, but we've got more straight ahead after this.
▲
Export Selection