All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
August 20, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
That means you come here and you expect to be dazzled and you are dazzled and then some.
You know why?
Because every day, every day I do everything I can to get ready, and then just a little bit more.
Kudos to George Toma, that life philosophy, former groundskeeper, Kansas City Royals, Kansas City Chiefs, National Football League.
Great to have you back, folks, 800-282-2882.
There's a poll from uh public policy polling, a far-left bunch of pollsters in North Carolina, and it is a poll of North Carolina.
It is said that North Carolina is a state that is crucial to both parties, and particularly the uh the Democrats.
Now the the There's an interesting couple things about this poll.
One of them is in the Washington Examiner today, Philip Klein has a piece, and he's using citing data from this public policy polling poll that Trump has already peaked.
And the evidence is abundant, he says, that there really is only one way for Trump to go now, and that's down.
And the reason this conclusion has been reached, it's it's strange, and I I had to read through this two or three times to make sense of it.
Even though Trump is leading in this poll by a wide range, like 25% for Trump 14 next Ben Carson.
In Trump versus Republican A, Republican B, in head-to-head matchups in the poll, Trump doesn't do nearly as well against other Republicans.
And so the theory is that as this primary goes on, that those at the bottom are going to drop out.
And the field is going to get smaller.
And as the field gets smaller, all of those voters supporting the candidates dropping out will go to somebody besides Trump.
Thereby boosting those in second, third, fourth, fifth place now.
This is the theory, and they claim that this evidence for this can be found in not just this poll, but it's the latest from public policy polling.
So let me let me grab the the data from the poll itself here first.
Let me give you just a couple of three pull quotes from the from the poll.
Donald Trump has grown his lead by eight points.
I mean, if you just look at the headlines of this poll, you think Trump's running away from it, or running away with it, and that nobody has a chance, but that's not the case.
Trump has grown his lead by eight points in a month in North Carolina, and Hillary loses to eight of the Republican potential nominees in a head-to-head matchup in this poll.
Hillary is beaten by eight of them.
Trump leads the GOP field with moderates 29%.
He's got 25% support from those who call themselves somewhat conservative.
He has 21% from conservative, very conservative voters.
The men versus women is 26 versus 22%, middle-aged voters 20%.
But it it's it just on the surface of it here, using that data, Trump looks like he's killing it.
Clinton trails eight of the 11 Republican hopefuls in hypothetical matchups, although most of the margins are close.
The strongest performers in this poll against Hillary are number one is not Trump.
While Trump is running away with the preference within the party in the section of the poll where they put various Republicans against Hillary, Ben Carson in this poll beats Hillary by the biggest margin, 47 to 40.
Next is Marco Rubio, who beats Hillary 45 to 41.
Carson and Rubio Have been the strongest performing Republicans in the general election polling data in all three of the polls that public policy polling has done.
They surveyed 957 voters from August 12th to the 16th, including 477 Democrat primary voters and 406 Republican primary voters.
They say the margin of error.
The overall survey is plus or minus 3.2%.
Now here's from the actual story itself.
And stick with me, and I know numbers get really hard to follow when you're just hearing them.
I'll do my best to make the complexity here make some kind of sense.
Last month, when we polled North Carolina, found Donald Trump leading the Republican field.
It was the first poll by anybody anywhere to find Trump out ahead.
He was at 16%.
Our new survey finds that Trump's momentum has just continued to grow.
He's now at 24%, up from 16.
Ben Carson's at 14%, Jeb Bush at 13, Ted Cruz at 10%, Marco Rubio is at 9%, and Fia Arena Huckabee and Scott Walker are at 6%.
Those people make for a pretty clean top eight in the state, rounding out the field of Rand Paul at 3%, Chris Christie and Santorum at 2%, and John Kasich and Rick Perry at 1%.
Gilmore, Gendal Pitaki, less than 1%, and Lindsey Graham in North Carolina literally did not get one vote in the poll.
Literally has no supporters.
Now Trump's eight-point gain from 16 to 24% gives him the biggest momentum in the state over the last 30 days.
The other two candidates who also show upward momentum are Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.
Carson has gone from 9 to 14% as people's first choice.
Beyond that, he is 21% of voters' second choice, making him the clear leader on that front.
And Carson's 66 to 11 favorability rating makes Ben Carson the most popular of the Republican hopefuls in the state.
He's at 14% in the poll, behind Trump at 24%, but he is the most favorite, most popular in the field.
Cruz has gone from 6% a month ago to 10% now.
The losers in North Carolina over the last month are Scott Walker, Huckabee, Paul, and Christie.
The news is especially bad for Rand Paul.
Not going to go into details on that.
Trump leads the GOP field with moderates, somewhat conservatives, very conservatives, and men and women and middle-aged voters and younger voters and seniors.
He leads in every one of those categories.
The numbers are 29 to 25 to 21 to 26.
Nothing near 50 here.
It's just we're divvying the vote up here by a lot of people, which is the key here.
If voters...
This is where this gets interesting here, folks.
If voters had to choose just between Trump and Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio or Scott Walker, the supporters of the other candidates coalesce around the non-Trump candidate enough that Trump would lag behind.
Meaning, this is why people think Trump is as peaked, why Philip Klein thinks so in North Carolina, because as these candidates on the bottom tier drop out, their supporters, according to this poll, will not go to Trump.
They will go to Carson, they will go to Rubio Scott Walker.
And so if voters had to choose just between Trump and Ben Carson, it'd be 59 Trump, 35 Carson.
It'd be 51 Trump, 43 Rubio, 50 Trump, 43 Scott Walker.
So while Trump is shwacking the field in head-to-head matchups, it is really, really close between Trump and three or four of the field.
The Democrat side, things are very consistent.
Hillary Leeds, 55 to 19 over Bernie Sanders, 5% for Jim Webb, 2% for Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley.
A month ago, Clinton led Sanders by an identical 55 to 20 spread.
Bernie Sanders not gaining ground on her in North Carolina.
So this is why, ladies and gentlemen.
Philip Klein writes his story that Trump has already peaked.
It is in the Washington Examiner, says it's uh it's true that Trump's defied many predictions up to this point in his candidacy.
Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, which has the same ownership as the Washington Examiner, which is where Klein's piece is published.
Crystal has been for weeks been hypothesizing that Trump had peaked, only to see him remain at the top of the field, but the data suggests that Crystal may be onto something, and you now know the date it.
The bottom line here is, from Klein's standpoint, is this.
Of all the Republican candidates, Trump is the most well-known among registered voters surveyed.
Just 1%...
By the way, this constitutes bad news for Trump, in this guy's opinion.
Stick with me.
Of all the Republican candidates, Trump is the most well-known among registered voters.
Just one percent of respondents say they never heard of him.
Respondents had an overwhelmingly unfavorable view of Trump.
59 unfavorable, 36 favorable.
The poll also reveals that a majority of Trump's support is from moderate Republicans, not conservative Republicans.
37% have never heard of Scott Walker, which to Philip Klein says he's got all kinds of room to grow.
Trump cannot max out anymore on name recognition.
I mean, when when 99% know who you are, you have nobody left to impress.
Klein's point is when 99% know who you are, and your favorability is 36, and your unfavorable is 59.
Klein says Trump's going to have a lot of trouble converting the 36 unfavorable or 36 favorable to a positive number.
This is the theory.
Just sharing this with you.
The other guys, a lot of people haven't heard of him.
That represents an opportunity to convert unfavorable to favorable, but Trump is pretty much a known uh quantity now.
And because of that, people's opinions of him have already formed.
And the odds are that most people's opinions are etched in stone.
Now I want to read to you, however, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the last paragraph of the story from public policy polling.
Finally, another declared independent candidate, D's Nuts, D-E-E-Z in UTC, N U T S, D's Nuts, polls at 9% in North Carolina to go along with his 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa in our recent polling.
This is public policy polling.
Trump leads Clinton 40 to 38 when he's in the mix.
But in this whole poll with all of this detailed data about Trump and all these other candidates, there's somebody in the mix here named Dees Nuts.
It's getting 9%.
Now, who is Dee's nuts?
D's nuts is a 15-year-old kid in Iowa playing a joke on the polling business.
Bad news for 9% of likely voters in North Carolina, their candidate doesn't exist.
There is no D's nuts.
The candidate called D's nuts, who has filed with the FEC to run for president, is a 15-year-old kid from Iowa named Brady Olson.
He's a high school sophomore, said he was inspired by news that limber but McCubbins, a cat in Kentucky.
A Kentucky cat, limber butt McCubbins, had also filed paperwork to run for president.
So this kid, Brady Olsen Filed as D's nuts.
And sure as the Dickens, he's gotten 9% in the public policy polling in North Carolina, and they report it as though this legitimate contender here in independent named D's nuts.
And get this, 9% chews Deez Nuts.
Deez Nuts had a favorable 13%.
Yes.
I'm sorry, 6% favorable, 13% unfavorable, and 81% not sure.
Now what is this tell you about polling?
That somebody who doesn't exist gets 9%.
Somebody who does not exist has a favorable opinion of 6% of the voters, unfavorable of 13% of the voters in North Carolina.
What is it?
What does that mean for the whole poll?
If anything.
I mean, they report this at public policy polling in their story as though there's this legitimate candidate out there named D's nuts, D. E. E. Z, and U T S. What do you bet this kid's parents listen to this program?
What do you bet this kid's a rush baby in the making?
He sees that a cat in Kentucky named Limber Butt McCubbins registered with the FEC post.
So he thought he would try it.
Now here you've all these polsters, and of course they take it dead seriously.
And so do the candidates, and so do the consultants.
You imagine this poll came out yesterday.
And all these consultants, these D's nuts, who the hell's D's nuts?
And they start researching D's nuts.
Who's getting 9% here?
That 9%, we could use it now.
This guy getting 9%.
D's nuts is getting more support than Rand Paul.
He doesn't exist.
Anyway, it's kind of comical when you get right down to it.
Take a break, come back, and your telephone calls are next, folks.
Don't go away.
Rolling Stone went on.
They found Dee's nuts and they did a little interview with a guy.
Dees Nuts says that he leans libertarians, says he decided to run because he's 15 now.
There's Gary Olson.
He didn't want to see Clinton, Bush, or Trump in the White House.
So he's trying to put up a fight here.
He says he asked public policy polling to include his name, and they did.
Rolling Stone asked him if he had to back another presidential candidate beside himself, who would it be?
And he said Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson, who's a libertarian from uh New Mexico.
So the kid obviously is not a rush baby.
But that's who he is.
And he gets nine percent.
And he hasn't spent a dime in North Carolina.
He hasn't campaigned there because he doesn't exist.
There is no D's nuts campaign.
They get 9%.
This guy did better than Rand Paul, Lindsay Gramnesty, George Pataki, Huckabee.
And of course, everybody else is analyzing this poll as though it's just rock solid credible.
Okay, we go to the phones.
Jeff and Orlando, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the phone to the program, and you're up first today, so it's great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, conservative megamega dittoes from those of us who feel you are the only real intelligent voice out there.
Well, that's so.
Um, I had a question, and thank you for talking about the 14th Amendment, because it's very important.
Um I turned on Fox News because I don't watch the other cable networks because we know what their slant is, but I expected Fox to get it right.
But on, I believe it was Tuesday, Judge Napolitano was on talking to um in one of the evening shows, and he basically said what they're all saying that when you're born on the soil, it's equal citizenship.
Well, I Well, no, that it is, but they're they're saying it's in the 14th Amendment, it's not.
Right.
And and like you, I read the 14th Amendment, and it says no.
It and one of the things I think nobody's talking about, or I haven't heard him talk about is that the 14th Amendment was written also for diplomats.
When they come here and they're on their own country's business, but they're on our soil, and they're they have a baby, they're not automatic citizens, they're citizens of their own country.
So why wouldn't this apply to here?
I just I just don't like, you know, and O'Reilly was talking last night about the Supreme Court decision in 1985 that you know that makes it law.
Well, I guess he doesn't understand the Supreme Court doesn't write the laws.
They're well, they do now.
Uh John Roberts writ uh wrote Obamacare twice.
Yeah, right.
So, but I mean they set a precedent, but you know, and then they're all arguing we have to supreme change the law.
The law hasn't been changed, it's just they're not following it.
So, and this is a real hard issue.
I understand it.
I'm an American citizen, so hard issue.
We're not heartless.
We just want to uphold the Constitution and follow the laws that are written for us, American citizens.
That's what the founders had to say.
Well, no, wait a minute, there's there's something else going on here, and I think we gotta face it squarely, and we need to hit it between the eyes.
And I let me we are not obligated to open our borders and let this country be dissolved to nothing simply because it's the greatest on earth and that's unfair.
Everybody is laden with guilt.
We've got over the borders rush, these people are suffering all over the world.
We're all outposts of freedom.
Rush, we've got a lot.
We are not obligated to do that.
Our obligation is to ourselves and obligating to ourselves.
The job of defending and protecting this country is how we serve other people around the world, not by letting this country go to hell.
We are under no such obligation.
But this is a you know, this daytime TV star whose name everybody would know.
He just is obsessed with so much guilt, my country is so great.
If they want to come here, who am I to say they can't come?
Well, you damn well better because it isn't going to be great if you have that attitude.
We are not obligated to watch this country dissolve.
We don't have to do that.
And we're back.
Great to have you with us as always, Rush Limbaugh here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Uh Bucky in uh in Bridgeport, Connecticut, you're next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Good day, Rush.
It's been too long since my last broadcast on the big voice on the right.
Well, here you are, back at it again.
Well, it's hard to stay away from it, Rush, when as you say this uh people think we're to stand by and watch this nation uh dissolve.
We are not, okay.
That's really that's a big point.
You know, I I I I don't mean that to sound as a as a flippant throwaway.
It is a crucial, crucial point.
We are not obligated to share.
We're not obligated to watch ourselves be dissolved away simply because it's not fair that we're so big and powerful.
And a lot of people think that it is, and it's not.
It's not an obligation.
And and you wouldn't you wouldn't let your own home uh be treated this way.
You wouldn't let your own neighborhood be treated this way.
Uh and you don't have to let your own country either.
But yet too many people fall for the guilt.
Anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I want to I I do think it's a big deal psychologically.
Well, I would uh I would sing this if I had a good voice, but since I don't, I'll say it.
Wouldn't it be wise if the champion in this whole menagerie were to do again what he did at the state fair in Iowa when he was the only Republican candidate to stay away from the soapbox presentations?
And why doesn't he recognize that you don't get a shot at the champ until you uh pre-qualify?
And for him to withdraw from this next debate would put him permanently over the top.
Our uh polls, the poll I work for, has him at sixty-eight percent of all expected voters.
Notice I didn't say registered voters.
I'm talking about the voters who vote who are unregistered, the voters who are no longer living, the voters who are lower animals, such as dogs and cats, and and Limbert brought McCubbins, I think must be a female from your discretion of of these nuts.
Well, you would think of it a name, yes.
But wouldn't Trump really be wise to say, listen, you guys uh uh grovel over the crumbs, he should not enter a forum led by the mainstream media, and that includes Fox News Channel, MSNBC.
Well, see that what what is your theory here?
Are you saying that Trump should Act so big that even a debate with these lessers is beneath him.
Is that your point?
Or is your point that he has nothing to gain by going anywhere moderated by a bunch of commie bastards in the media?
This is not an either-or world rush.
The answer is both, the former and the latter.
Of course he's bigger than the other.
Well, if it's the if it's the former, I disagree with you because I th I th I think that the nature of Trump is that he is he is the one guy in this field that has the ability to go over them to make them unnecessary to the proceedings.
He is able to get his message out regarding.
He doesn't have to wait for them to come along in order for him to get his message out.
I don't know.
I think if he if he skipped out on a debate for whatever reason he gave, it wouldn't think it'd help him at all.
Well, I don't consider it skipping out at all.
He's just simply telling the American people, and he's riveting his support.
When he says to them, I'm finished with these mainstream media babes who who bleed from their eyes or and other places, and I'm finished with I'm going direct to you, the American people.
The support would be resounding.
In other words, he needs to have workers.
He doesn't need voters.
The problem is he needs workers to collect uh correct this election frigging that we have, which is a combination of election fraud and election rigging.
That's why the poll I work for has polled all who will vote.
Well, I I don't I don't I don't get your joke here when you're polling unit Paul's dogs and cats.
I don't know where we're going with that.
Uh but that it it's look, let's stick with your your your point here, even if you're joking about it in ways that we haven't yet caught.
Uh your theory that Trump should just avoid these debates like he did this soapbox thing in Iowa and stand out that way by refusing to lower himself with all these other candidates at another forum that is moderated and driven by the media, people who are not his friends.
You think that his popularity would soar by telling them, sorry, I have better things to do.
I have nothing to gain by showing up and answering your stupid questions.
I have nothing to gain by putting up on all these other yammering nimrods who are going to do nothing but waste my time.
I'm gonna go out and I'm gonna continue to talk to the American people when they can listen to only me, because I'm the only one they need to be hearing from anyway.
Why do I need to go someplace and be there for two hours and have a maximum 10 minutes time to speak?
Where is it for me that that's a good move?
Is that your theory?
If that's your theory uh it would be interesting to see the reaction.
And it might play out the way you say.
But I think, on the other hand, one of one of the things that that uh drives Trump's popularity is that he sticks it to these people in the media.
And people love seeing that.
They love seeing Trump tell a media person.
You're stupid.
What kind of question is that?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Let me tell you the way it really is.
They love that.
Nobody ever talks back to him.
Nobody ever gets on their case.
And if Trump did pull the move that I just described, you know damn well that there would be cat calls, what's gone wrong?
Is Trump becoming a coward all of a sudden?
What's he afraid of?
Is he figured out that he's got nothing to do but lose by showing up at these things?
Is he worried?
Is Jeb Bush coming on?
Does Trump have internal polling unit that's showing he's losing?
All of those questions would be asked.
Well, he'd answer them.
Look at well, he I'll tell you what, he is going someplace when I get the he's going to in Alabama, some some 50,000 seat stadium for an appearance because the original here it is.
It's in the uh the Hill.com.
GOP presidential candidate.
Trump is again moving his uh rally tomorrow night in Mobile, Alabama, to a venue with more seating because of overwhelming demand.
He's now conducting a uh Friday night pep rally and town hall event at the Lad Peebles Stadium, which is home to the University of South Alabama football team.
He had already moved from the Mobile Civic Center Theater to the center's main arena, which has a capacity of 14,000.
Tickets for Trump's stop were selling so quickly that another venue move was needed.
Trump said this week it's going to end up at 30 to 40,000 people in Alabama.
So I don't need any stinking debate.
300 people in the audience and a couple of drive-bys trying to ruin me.
What do I need that for?
Well, that'd be an intriguing sight to see.
Bucky.
Thanks for the call out there.
I did I did I got lost on the polling unit of dogs and cats.
I'm sure there was a joke in there, but I missed it.
Here's uh here's Wayne in uh O'Reilly, Canada.
Great to have you.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, uh, longtime listener, thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Um You had mentioned earlier that uh in the first hour that Canada allows what they call anchor babies.
Uh now being born on Canadian soil just does not automatically entitle you to citizenship.
Um you have to be born, if you want that, you have to be born to a permanent resident or citizen.
This was brought up, I think, in two thousand twelve by the what we call the Tories, you call the conservatives.
Right, right, right.
It comes through the parents.
It comes through the parents, and then a financial sponsorship, but you just cannot automatically say, okay, I had a baby, there it is, he's automatically Canadian.
So I think the U.S. is the only place in the world right now that allows that.
Well, if that's true, that's what you nailed it earlier, Rush, when you said it was a myth, because it's a myth or a misnomer here as well, and it's a myth or misnomer in the States.
It was just, you know, anchor babies or birth tourists or passport babies, whatever we want to call them, was just something that was predicated brought on by the media.
Well, you know, a bunch of knocked it off.
A bunch of misleading liars have have over the years convinced people that it's in our Constitution that if you're born here, no matter who's the mother, you're a citizen, and that it's right there in the 14th Amendment.
It's not.
It's not in the 14th Amendment.
It w this whole thing derives from a footnote in a Supreme Court decision by that idiotic justice William O. Douglas.
That is the only reason this whole thing exists.
It's not it it has never been a law passed by the United States Congress, even.
It it its roots traced to the uh Supreme Court and the assumption that whatever happens at the Supreme Court is uh infallible.
Now I know it says here tickets were selling so fast to the Trump.
I didn't know Trump was selling tickets, charging admission for his events.
This story implies that there's it was an implied states that ticket sales were so brisk.
Maybe, you know what, it just could be some lazy reporter, the tickets are being given away as to as they are to every campaign rally, and they just throw the word sell in there.
Uh anyway, Wayne, I appreciate the call and I thank you for the clarification on the status of this in Canada.
We will be back, my friend.
Rush Limboy, your guiding light, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero uh mistakes.
There never are any mistakes because I assign the duty, and there actually aren't any duties assigned.
I just do what I do.
It's improv.
Here's uh here's Elizabeth in St. Louis.
Welcome to the program, Elizabeth.
Thank you for calling.
So happy to speak with you.
You are killing it today.
I am loving it.
Thank you very much.
Not only do we have a duty or or a right to control our borders, we have a duty to control our borders.
And it's mainly because we have a a border that is dissolving not just to Mexico, but to to South America, to an entire you know, Guatemala, Ecuador, and you know, this is our home.
Don't forget El Salvador.
That's right.
And you know, this is our home.
If if you had if every time somebody knocked on your door, you had to let them in and give them dinner and a place to sleep and you had to educate them and give them health care.
Well, you know, now wait, wait, wait.
That's exactly The argument that I'm telling you about that I witnessed between my buddy and and this this well known daytime TV guy when he kept talking about if somebody wants to better their life and move to my country, I'm not gonna stop my friend.
What if he knocks on your back door and wants to date your daughter?
What are you gonna do?
Well, I'm still not gonna if somebody wants to never knock Yeah, he's not gonna knock on your back door, he's gonna knock on somebody else's, but what if he knocked on your back and the argument stopped?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, you know, fair there was a time in our nation's history where we had unprecedented immigration in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
And there weren't any anchor babies then, because you had to get on a boat and it took you however many weeks to get here.
And yet it was an orderly uh uh managed uh uh assimil uh uh immigration process and assimilation into this country, and we have a right now to not only control the number of people that are coming in, but the actual, you know, qualities and and um uh educational level and and all of that.
By the way, by the folks, in case you're this is exactly what we do on the legal side.
We do all of this.
We determine that this is how we determine who legally gets in the country.
That's why my my point Elizabeth, we're not even really talking about immigration in terms of what's happening.
It's a convenient way for the political class to to make it an issue.
But this isn't immigration that's happening.
There's no process being followed here whatsoever.
It's everything, in fact, is being ignored and bypassed.
Um I I think that it's it's it's it's it's out of control.
You do you realize that there was no immigration in this country from the early 1900s until 1964?
Yeah, that's amazing.
And and we shut it down.
You know why we shut it down after the immigration you're talking about, the Ellis Island immigration, we shut it down so that all those immigrants, those millions who wanted to come here and become Americans could assimilate.
We went sixty years or more with no immigration, folks.
It can be done.
The only reason that it started up again, Ted Kennedy started belly yanking about it in uh in the mid-sixties, and then that led to Simpson Mazzoli 20 years later, 1986, amnesty for about 3.9 million, and we were told that would be it, never again, and of course now we're where we are.
Right.
And if if we don't control it, it changes everything.
It changes our language, it changes our our political system, our educational system.
Okay, but let me let me play devil's advocate with you.
Okay, well, who says we're the best?
Who says our language doesn't deserve to be changed?
Who says our economy doesn't deserve to be watered down?
It's not fair that we should have so much and so many have less.
Because we have worked hard to achieve the standard of living that we have, the the you know, our kids go to the No, we haven't, it's just accidental.
It's just we the winners of life's lottery.
We haven't done anything special.
We're no better than anybody else.
And that's why we have no right to keep people out.
Look at what we did to the Indians.
Look what we did with slavery.
We have such a big debt to pay.
We need to let anybody in who wants to come in.
I'm playing the devil's advocate with you.
Yeah, I hear you.
And you know, I just reject it.
I just flat out reject it because I see I know how hard I've worked.
I know how hard my grandparents worked.
Um I I I I just I see I see what it takes.
And it's something that I'm not willing to just throw away.
I'll tell you what I see.
When I I go all the way back to the Founding Fathers, I see the miracle of the founding of this country.
It is so special.
It's so unique.
What needs to be emulated around the world is the United States.
The problem with this world is the unequal distribution of capitalism.
The problem with this world is that there isn't enough liberty and freedom.
The problem with the world is that not enough nations are trying to emulate what we've done.
Instead, the effort is to tear this nation apart.
And the problem is we have people living here who are assisting in that effort for whatever misguided reasons.
But I go all the way back to, I mean, your grandparents and great grandparents I obviously what they did, the sacrifices they made, they had real hardship.
I understand that.
But man, I am s uh the older I get, I am I'm more and more in awe of people in the military, and I am just indescribably in awe of the founding of this country and the miracle for everything that happened to come uh uh just to take place at the right time when it did.
Uh it it's I I think it is a miracle.
Right.
I think we're just you know what it you know what it took?
It took courage.
And that's what we need now.
We need courage to to stand up to this and and not let it be destroyed.
Agreed, and a lot of people need an infusion of confidence.
And a lot of people need to learn that there's nothing here to be ashamed of.
And even if you want to conjure up some things, they are not reason enough to rip this country apart, particularly under the guise of fairness or whatever.
It's destructive.
Thank you very much, Elizabeth.
We'll be back in a second.
Okay, who do you think said this?
Whoever will not work should not eat.
Who said that?
Well, a lot of people said that.
In this case, it was Il Papa.
Pope Francis said this.
This guy's all over the ballpark.
▲
Export Selection