To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
Posted on 05/26/2009 10:27:53 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
Early edition.
More later.
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
Just moments ago, prior to the start of today's program, my trusted aide-de-camp and chief of staff, H.R. Carson, sends me a note saying that he had just gotten off the phone with the Associated Press. The Associated Press asked if they could roll tape on my comments regarding Sonia Sotomayor nominated to the Supreme Court today by President Obama. The guy on the phone from the AP said to H.R, "Look, I know that Rush passed the leadership baton the Republican Party to Secretary Powell, but Rush is still the most influential voice out there for Republicans." So H.R. said, "Should I grant them permission?" "Yeah, we can't stop 'em rolling tape on what I say, feel free."
Ladies and gentlemen, her story is very inspirational. The personal story of Sonia Sotomayor, where she came from and where she has now arrived, you can't deny that this is a tremendous story, very inspirational for practically everybody. But the thing I'd like to point out is that she accomplished all of this during the Reagan years. She accomplished all of this during the Bush years, both Bush presidential years, 12 years, and even the Clinton years. She accomplished all of this before President Obama, The Messiah, was elected president of the United States. Now, this morning Mr. Snerdley came to me breathlessly looking for guidance, as I'm sure many of you are, too. "Do you think we should go to the mat stopping Sotomayor? Do you think we ought to go to the wall to oppose her?" And I said, "Absolutely we should, once again an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama."
I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped. She should be. She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court. She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she's overturned. She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided. Details on that coming up. But here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.
He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true, that she's a great constitutionalist; that she doesn't use personal opinion; that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice. She has done just the opposite of that. She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. She's even admitted it. Grab sound bite number one. This is 2005 in Durham, North Carolina, at Duke, the School of Law there during a panel discussion about the court of appeals. This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor had to say.
SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)
RUSH: Well, there you have it. She makes light of it and makes jokes about what she determines her purpose to be. She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is; what he really believes in. And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having. She stands for policy making. Her defenders have said two things that are incompatible. I've been watching TV this morning and her defenders have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. "No, she doesn't believe in policy making from the bench. Her words were taken out of context." You just heard her words. Listen to it again. Here's audio sound bite number one. We got liberal defenders on TV this morning saying, "No, no, no, she's been taken out of context there, she doesn't believe in policy making."
SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)
RUSH: She's just telling her audience what they want to believe. I mean, the audience is laughing because she let the cat out of the bag, but they know nothing is going to come of it because she's just being honest. She's being hones, nothing out of context here whatsoever. So her liberal defenders on TV today have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. They said that she's been taken out of context, she does not believe in policy making, and they're also saying that every justice in every decision is about policy making. I've watched it all this morning. The defenders of Sonia Sotomayor have come out all over the ballpark, from all over the place, and they're contradicting themselves. This is why this is actually a good choice. I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the court.
Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah. AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country. Now, I also want to talk what I think the Republicans are going to do with this as opposed to what they should do, 'cause I think those are two entirely different things. There's a big source of controversy with Sonia Sotomayor and I don't know if it's going to be brought up. Somebody, I'm sure Jeff Sessions or somebody on our side, the Judiciary Committee, will bring it up, and one of the focal points is going to be her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut, firefighter case that is at present on appeal at the Supreme Court. The name of the case is Ricci vs. DeStefano, and in this case Sonia Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotion to firefighters. She sided with them.
"Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters' crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion 'contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case' and its 'perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.' To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, 'Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.' Ironically, Sotomayor's dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement."
So it will be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does in this case where a liberal Democrat judge appointed by Clinton chastised her in writing. "In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their 'experiences as women and people of color,' which she believes should 'affect our decisions.'" Yet Obama is up there talking about how she's superb at interpreting the law. She's just said -- and she said it numerous times -- she is not about interpreting the law; she's about making policy from an extreme radical left-wing position. Obama talks about we need people with empathy. It's not even about empathy, folks, that's just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.
She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, "'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke," where you just heard the audio sound bite, the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one -- you getting this, AP? -- Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. A guy named Jeffrey Rosen, who is the legal affairs editor at the New Republic, a liberal journal of opinion, let me read what he writes about her.
"Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues." So she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be. She's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire, and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So, yes, there's a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in, and this is how it can happen. Now, will the Republicans do it? That's another question.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Have you seen, and do you remember if you have seen it a picture of the lady holding the scales of justice? Do you know what's remarkable about the lady in that rendering? She's blindfolded. She doesn't know whether the people before her... Justice does not know whether the people before it are black, white, Hispanic, male, female, rich, poor, Martian, or whatever. There is nothing about Sonia Sotomayor that is blindfolded where justice is concerned. This is a huge concern. Now, what are the Republicans going to do? I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the US Supreme Court. It's a close second because he does have an anti-constitutional view.
If he gets her concerned he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court. That's what he wants. Forget this empathy stuff. That's to get the squishies among us to think it's okay. He wants an anti-constitutionalist out there. But this is also a huge wedge issue for Obama. This is a two-run homer. You might even call it a grand slam. She's a what? A, a woman. B, what? A Hispanic. Boy. She's a two prong minority. I guarantee you that a majority of Republicans are going to be scared to death to oppose her or even say anything about her because the Dems are going to use race left and right. They use race nominating her. They use race and minority status nominating her (identity politics) and then they are going to use race, identity politics, minority status, feminism, to criticize me and any other Republican that dares oppose her.
So you've got a great wedge issue here for Obama in the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate now, are going to be in a huge box, a huge political box -- and don't forget, the Republicans are under the illusion that how they treat and react to Sotomayor will affect how they are able to get the Hispanic vote. Now, this is where the Republicans are really, really missing the boat. We tried this. Who did...? Every Bush Hispanic nominee who was male they set out to destroy. Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, the Democrats set out to destroy them. The Hispanic aspect is irrelevant except when they nominate one, particularly now a woman. So the Republicans are going to have to forget about this.
They have got a choice here, the purpose of which is to get an anti-constitutionalist on the court, and the second aspect of the choice is to shut them up, to cower them, to get them cowering in fear in the corners of the committee hearing room and saying nothing. Because Obama knows that the moderate Republicans who run the Republican Party, led by General Powell, are obsessed with not causing any waves, not making any waves. And they're obsessed with this big tent, and they're obsessed with inclusiveness (whatever the hell that means) and they're obsessed with the Hispanic vote. So whether Rahm Emanuel picked it or whether one of the Clinton people nominated her is irrelevant. Obama's got a twofer here.
And, look, as I say, the odds that she could be stopped are long. Perhaps the biggest pitfall she faces is her own confirmation hearings. She might slip up there and might say something that would give the opposition a home run. But even then they're going to have to be willing to take advantage of it. By the way, do you know that Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito? Barack Obama opposed them both, and in both cases -- of John Roberts, the current chief justice, and Samuel Alito -- he said, "Oh, they're perfectly qualified and they've both got perfect judicial temperament. But I'm going to vote against them," because to him it's about ideology. It's about liberalism. He thought these two guys were conservatives, and it didn't matter to him what their judicial temperament or qualifications were. He voted against both of those.
So now he's got a hack. He got a party hack that he's put on the court that's likely to be confirmed. This is where the so-called moderate Republicans are completely useless if you ask me. When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate Senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge? You see, folks, we are confronting a radical assault on this nation, a radical assault today on the US Supreme Court, and moderates in the Republican Party are distracting our ability to organize the opposition. You know why the Democrats don't like me? You know why the Democrats don't like me and the media doesn't like me?
It's precisely because I'm the one doing the heavy lifting against them. Me and my buddies on talk radio and their leaders. I'm the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans. The truth be told... Do you know where Colin Powell stands on a single issue? Do you know where Tom Ridge stands on a single issue? Neither one of those guys was asked where they stand on a single issue in their Sunday show interviews. So what we're trying to do here is save the country, save our country from a party and an ideology that is systematically remaking it: the Democrat Party and liberalism. And if the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless. So this is where we are, and that's what I had to say about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored." Now, I say this again: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. "In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation," meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001. So there you have it.
END TRANSCRIPT
How long before John McCain praises 0bama for this choice?
We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of supreme personal opinion.
She probably cannot be stopped unless something comes up between now and her confirmation hearings. The fact that she's a bigot is secondary to me; foremost is that she's incompetent!
If Pres’ent DUh-bama is supportive of Sodomiter, that’s enough of a reason to OPPOSE the nomination 100%.
LOL
Followed by Meghan McCain on The View saying just how groovy Obama’s pick is.
If her confirmation is inevitable, let’s try to find a silver lining. Once she starts blabbing and issuing opinions, maybe the remaining liberal judges will be so outraged that they may go to the other side in their opinions. She will be the poster girl of things gone wrong in our country, which is going to get worse by the way. Can any serious person even compare the stature of any one of the conservative Judges against her? Even left leaning Democrats will be sickened and for sure all moderates and independents.
Dubya tried like hell to put a Hispanic on the high court. He first groomed former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Al Gonzalez to get there (would not have been an inspired choice, in hind sight) and then he worked super hard for the Honduran (Miguel Estrada) to attain the DC Circuit Court seat as a prelude to high court pick. That poor guy waited over 2 years to be confirmed only to get his name pulled in the deal with the Gang of 14 (Grahamnesty, McCain, Sphincter, et al).
And all during these 20 years these same types of Republicans sought me out. They wanted my help in the '94 congressional races. They wanted my help in 2000, 2004. They wanted my help in 2006. Many members of Congress called this program, wanted to get on this program. Now all of a sudden I am the primary problem with the Republican Party. I think that General Powell and Tom Ridge need to be put to the test. They need to be asked and they need to say where they stand, not only on this nominee, but where they stand on issues confronting the United States. This is where the so-called moderate Republicans -- the RINOs, whatever you want to call them -- are in my opinion completely useless.
We are at one of those occasions where the rubber has hit the road. We have a radical anti-constitutionalist nominated to the Supreme Court by the most radical leftist president we've ever had in the country who was himself also an anti-constitutionalist. Where are the moderate Republican groups on this nomination? Where are the moderate Republican individuals? Where are the moderate senators? Where is Powell? Is anybody going to ask Powell what he thinks of this nomination? It is General Powell around whom the Republican Party should be organized. That's what they're saying. Tom Ridge, too. Are Powell and Ridge going to be asked what they think of this nomination? Doubt it. If they were asked, what would they say?
We are confronting a radical assault on our country. The moderates in our party are distracting our ability to organize opposition to this. As I said, the Democrats don't like me precisely because of my substance. The media doesn't like me precisely because of my substance. I'm the one doing the heavy lifting against them and their leaders. General Powell is pandering to the Democrat Party, and truth be told, I think most people have no idea where Powell stands on most major issues. They have a perception of him based on the liberal media, and he has a great reputation. His poll numbers are very high. But does anybody know what General Powell stands for? He wasn't asked by Bob Schieffer his position on anything Sunday. He wasn't asked to define the Republican Party based on issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, you and me, we're trying to save our country from a party and an ideology systematically remaking it. The moderates in our party offer no way to address danger. They won't even confront it. They won't even acknowledge the danger that exists. None! In all of General Powell's interview on CBS on Sunday, he failed to mention a single principle that he thought was worthy of defending against what's going on here. He failed to advance a single policy that would help contain any of this. Instead, General Powell talks about a "big tent." He talks about a "right wing." He talks about me. He talks about "inclusiveness." But he offers nothing substantive. Tom Ridge on CNN Sunday was no different. What does he stand for, other than cliches about "big tents" and "inclusiveness" and a "new tone"?
What does Tom Ridge say that contributes that the urgent political and societal battle we're smack in the middle of? What does Colin Powell say that contributes to the urgent political and societal battle that we're smack in the middle of? Nothing. General Powell votes for Democrats. He admitted on Face the Nation he voted for JFK. He voted for Jimmy Carter. Did he vote for Clinton? He voted for Obama. This is a guy around whom the Republican Party needs to organize itself, we are told. Now, President Obama just nominated a radical anti-constitutionalist to the US Supreme Court. The nominee believes in reverse discrimination. The nominee believes in quotas and a host of far-left policies that she would mandate from the court on the American people, and she has said that's her role: to make policy.
Why aren't General Powell and Tom Ridge speaking out about this? This is an outrage. Forget politics. Let's just talk about the purpose of justices on the court. Lady Justice is blind; Sonia Sotomayor is not. Whether you're moderate, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, or not this is an outrage, this nomination, to the whole concept of justice and what it means in this country. But General Powell and Tom Ridge, I haven't seen a thing that they've said. I don't know that they're being asked what they think. Now, we have a radical nominee from a radical president, and we're told that the moderates in the Republican Party are those that are going to define the Republican Party. Fine and dandy. Where are the so-called moderates taking the lead now?
In defining the Republican Party and defending it and doing battle against the Democrat Party? Why aren't they? They're not. Why aren't they? And they won't, folks. They will only enter this scene when they think it's safe, and that is after conservatives have done all the heavy lifting on this nomination. And then, after that's happened, the moderates will run in, take over the media, and claim that their contribution will be to admonish the conservatives! They will. I guarantee you what's going to happen here. It won't be long before a moderate Republican gets on television and disavows the things that I have said today, because I am too shrill or outspoken or I offend too many people with what I say. They will raise objections to my "tone." They will raise objections to my "tenor," but they will not oppose this.
They will not they will not stop this because they are afraid to stop it. They are afraid to oppose this because they think they'll be called racists. This is why this is, politically, a pretty smart move from Obama. This is a wedge appointment. It boxes the Republican Party, particularly the moderates in. They won't dare criticize her, she's a woman, and she's the first Latino nominated -- Latina nominated -- to the Supreme Court. What this does for everybody else is to put in perspective Powell and Ridge, how they talk in platitudes and they talk about perceptions, but when you apply reality to their rhetoric it becomes clear how ill-equipped and directionless they are to handle any of this.
If they run the Republican Party, if the moderates take over and run the Republican Party, do you realize that there's no stopping any of the Obama agenda? There is in fact a joint or a joining with the Obama agenda on several things, as the moderates try to show the people they think hate them that they're reasonable people. Without question, I'm predicting the moderates in the Republican Party will support Sotomayor because of race. Supporting her, in their view, is how we get the Hispanic vote down the road -- and they'll be afraid to oppose her on race and identity issues as well. Wwithout question. Obama knows how to play these people, i.e., a wedge appointment. The truth is most Hispanics have no idea who she is. So this, again, is a golden opportunity to tell the American people who Obama is, by telling them who she is.
Don't forget: Obama and the Democrats trashed Alberto Gonzales left and right. And when they did, nobody accused the Democrats of being anti-Hispanic -- including Powell and Ridge! Powell and Ridge did not step up and chastise the Democrats for going after Alberto Gonzales or Miguel Estrada. They didn't at all. I'll tell you what, I think it's time... This game of ping-pong goes on, it's my turn now to hit back. I think it's about time that General Powell provide a coherent and comprehensive statement of his political doctrine. He's never asked about that. He relies, and so does the left, on his reputation as a DC insider. I set forth my views day in and day out, have done so for 20 years. I explained the origin of my ideas. I cite to history and philosophy. I set forth my principles. Yet it's not enough for General Powell to shoot spitballs from the studios of liberal media shows.
If he wants to have an impact, he needs to do more than this hit-and-run media appearance thing he's doing where he really says very little of substance and where he gets away with it. Tom Ridge is a politician. Tom Ridge, by the way, just passed up a chance to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania against a conservative in the GOP primary. That would be Pat Toomey. Anybody know why? I mean, if Pat Toomey is so bad for our party because Pat Toomey is a conservative, the kind of guy that Tom Ridge doesn't like, why didn't Tom Ridge run in the primary to stop him? Bob Schieffer, on Slay the Nation Sunday, did not ask General Powell a single serious question -- and that's what happens when they like somebody who is trashing conservatives. He could have asked him, "General Powell, how would you define your political philosophy?" "General Powell, what, if any, government programs would you cut?"
"General Powell, do you support expanding entitlement programs to include national health care? And if you do, General Powell, how would you pay for it?" "What is the highest tax rate you would accept, General Powell?" "General Powell, should we give amnesty to illegal aliens?" "General Powell, how would you expand the Republican Party's base without diminishing its principles?" "What are your views on affirmative action, General Powell?" "What are your views on the death penalty?" "How about school choice?" He never gets these questions. My opinion on these questions is cited by the media at all times to disqualify me. Bob Schieffer asked him none of this, and nothing else of substance or interest. And General Powell has yet to lay out his philosophy in any coherent way so that we can judge just how appealing it would be not only within the Republican Party, but beyond it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Interesting piece -- it's a blog -- by Toby Harnden at the UK Telegraph. The headline of his piece here: "What Right Do Colin Powell and Tom Ridge Have to Lecture the Republican Party?" Now, these are the questions of a British blogger who reports out of the United States. He writes this: "Why does Powell now seem to think he has the right or credibility to lecture Republicans on how their party should be run?" He voted for Obama, and he did so very publicly. He saved his endorsement of Obama at a very propitious strategic moment and did so in public after the Republican Party had nominated a candidate supposedly ideal to somebody like General Powell. That would be John McCain. "So why does Powell now seem to think he has the right or credibility to lecture Republicans on how their party should be run? Just as he did not just go quietly into the polling booth and vote for Obama, Powell is not working discreetly behind the behind the scenes at party gatherings to press his case," which is what I just said.
Where are his policy prescriptions? Where does he stand? What is he doing to organize the Republican Party, if he's now the leader of it, in opposition to this radical extremism that is being presented to the country from the Democrat Party? Now, Mr. Harnden writes, "It's easy to feel some sympathy for Powell. He was clearly marginalised during the Bush administration." You know, I really think there are three reasons to explain Colin Powell. One of them is race. I mean, there's no way he wasn't gonna support Obama, coming out and doing so publicly. Also he's angry at Bush and the Scooter Libby thing proves that. But I think the third element that explains Colin Powell, he went up and, you know, he was the point man at the United Nations with the slide show and the official presentation on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and even though we haven't found any, a lot of people believe they were there, Colin Powell no doubt feels profoundly humiliated and embarrassed with the people he cares about most, the Washington, DC political elites.
I think he's on a rehab tour to get his reputation back, and it's working. The rest of the DC establishment hates Bush, so it's an easy call, come out and oppose Bush, come out and oppose the Republican Party. We've all known that the way a Republican ingratiates him or herself in the DC political structure is to go on any television show in DC you can find and rip your own party, and maybe take it a step further: endorse the other guy. In fact, if the other guy happens to share race with you makes it even easier. So there's a lot of rehab going on here, but Toby Harnden is right. What right does Powell and Tom Ridge have to lecture the Republican Party, especially when they don't put forth any particular position on issues?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Sunday on CNN Tom Ridge refused to name a Republican that he would support in any upcoming election. He says he votes a secret ballot. Votes a secret ballot, wouldn't name anybody he would support. John King actually asked a good question. "Well, then, Mr. Ridge, why should any Republican listen to you if you won't commit to voting for a Republican nominee? Why should any Republican listen to you?" So a hard hit-back question from John King at CNN.
END TRANSCRIPT
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
On Today's Show... |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Maybe I should say here, ladies and gentlemen, for the first day, for the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American. No, no, no, just kidding. But Sonia Sotomayor is a great story. It's a great story. Greetings to you music lovers, thrill-seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plain. Time for broadcast excellence hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh, the former titular head of the Republican Party. Telephone number, 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
Just moments ago, prior to the start of today's program, my trusted aide-de-camp and chief of staff, H.R. Carson, sends me a note saying that he had just gotten off the phone with the Associated Press. The Associated Press asked if they could roll tape on my comments regarding Sonia Sotomayor nominated to the Supreme Court today by President Obama. The guy on the phone from the AP said to H.R, "Look, I know that Rush passed the leadership baton the Republican Party to Secretary Powell, but Rush is still the most influential voice out there for Republicans." So H.R. said, "Should I grant them permission?" "Yeah, we can't stop 'em rolling tape on what I say, feel free."
Ladies and gentlemen, her story is very inspirational. The personal story of Sonia Sotomayor, where she came from and where she has now arrived, you can't deny that this is a tremendous story, very inspirational for practically everybody. But the thing I'd like to point out is that she accomplished all of this during the Reagan years. She accomplished all of this during the Bush years, both Bush presidential years, 12 years, and even the Clinton years. She accomplished all of this before President Obama, The Messiah, was elected president of the United States. Now, this morning Mr. Snerdley came to me breathlessly looking for guidance, as I'm sure many of you are, too. "Do you think we should go to the mat stopping Sotomayor? Do you think we ought to go to the wall to oppose her?" And I said, "Absolutely we should, once again an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama."
I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped. She should be. She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court. She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she's overturned. She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided. Details on that coming up. But here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.
He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true, that she's a great constitutionalist; that she doesn't use personal opinion; that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice. She has done just the opposite of that. She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. She's even admitted it. Grab sound bite number one. This is 2005 in Durham, North Carolina, at Duke, the School of Law there during a panel discussion about the court of appeals. This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor had to say.
SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)
RUSH: Well, there you have it. She makes light of it and makes jokes about what she determines her purpose to be. She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is; what he really believes in. And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having. She stands for policy making. Her defenders have said two things that are incompatible. I've been watching TV this morning and her defenders have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. "No, she doesn't believe in policy making from the bench. Her words were taken out of context." You just heard her words. Listen to it again. Here's audio sound bite number one. We got liberal defenders on TV this morning saying, "No, no, no, she's been taken out of context there, she doesn't believe in policy making."
SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)
RUSH: She's just telling her audience what they want to believe. I mean, the audience is laughing because she let the cat out of the bag, but they know nothing is going to come of it because she's just being honest. She's being honest, nothing out of context here whatsoever. So her liberal defenders on TV today have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together. They said that she's been taken out of context, she does not believe in policy making, and they're also saying that every justice in every decision is about policy making. I've watched it all this morning. The defenders of Sonia Sotomayor have come out all over the ballpark, from all over the place, and they're contradicting themselves. This is why this is actually a good choice. I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the court.
Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah. AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country. Now, I also want to talk about what I think the Republicans are going to do with this as opposed to what they should do, 'cause I think those are two entirely different things. There's a big source of controversy with Sonia Sotomayor and I don't know if it's going to be brought up. Somebody, I'm sure Jeff Sessions or somebody on our side, the Judiciary Committee, will bring it up, and one of the focal points is going to be her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut, firefighter case that is at present on appeal at the Supreme Court. The name of the case is Ricci v. DeStefano, and in this case Sonia Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotion to firefighters. She sided with them.
"Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters' crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion 'contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case' and its 'perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.' To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, 'Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.' Ironically, Sotomayor's dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement."
So it will be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does in this case where a liberal Democrat judge appointed by Clinton chastised her in writing. "In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their 'experiences as women and people of color,' which she believes should 'affect our decisions.'" Yet Obama is up there talking about how she's superb at interpreting the law. She's just said -- and she said it numerous times -- she is not about interpreting the law; she's about making policy from an extreme radical left-wing position. Obama talks about we need people with empathy. It's not even about empathy, folks, that's just cover. He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.
She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, "'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke," where you just heard the audio sound bite, the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. So here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one -- you getting this, AP? -- Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. A guy named Jeffrey Rosen, who is the legal affairs editor at the New Republic, a liberal journal of opinion, let me read what he writes about her.
"Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions -- fixing typos and the like -- rather than focusing on the core analytical issues." So she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be. She's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire, and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So, yes, there's a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in, and this is how it can happen. Now, will the Republicans do it? That's another question.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Have you seen, and do you remember if you have seen it a picture of the lady holding the scales of justice? Do you know what's remarkable about the lady in that rendering? She's blindfolded. She doesn't know whether the people before her... Justice does not know whether the people before it are black, white, Hispanic, male, female, rich, poor, Martian, or whatever. There is nothing about Sonia Sotomayor that is blindfolded where justice is concerned. This is a huge concern. Now, what are the Republicans going to do? I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the US Supreme Court. It's a close second because he does have an anti-constitutional view.
If he gets her confirmed he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court. That's what he wants. Forget this empathy stuff. That's to get the squishies among us to think it's okay. He wants an anti-constitutionalist out there. But this is also a huge wedge issue for Obama. This is a two-run homer. You might even call it a grand slam. She's a what? A, a woman. B, what? A Hispanic. Boy. She's a two-prong minority. I guarantee you that a majority of Republicans are going to be scared to death to oppose her or even say anything about her because the Dems are going to use race left and right. They use race nominating her. They use race and minority status nominating her (identity politics) and then they are going to use race, identity politics, minority status, feminism, to criticize me and any other Republican that dares oppose her.
So you've got a great wedge issue here for Obama in the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate now, are going to be in a huge box, a huge political box -- and don't forget, the Republicans are under the illusion that how they treat and react to Sotomayor will affect how they are able to get the Hispanic vote. Now, this is where the Republicans are really, really missing the boat. We tried this. Who did...? Every Bush Hispanic nominee who was male they set out to destroy. Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, the Democrats set out to destroy them. The Hispanic aspect is irrelevant except when they nominate one, particularly now a woman. So the Republicans are going to have to forget about this.
They have got a choice here, the purpose of which is to get an anti-constitutionalist on the court, and the second aspect of the choice is to shut them up, to cower them, to get them cowering in fear in the corners of the committee hearing room and saying nothing. Because Obama knows that the moderate Republicans who run the Republican Party, led by General Powell, are obsessed with not causing any waves, not making any waves. And they're obsessed with this big tent, and they're obsessed with inclusiveness (whatever the hell that means) and they're obsessed with the Hispanic vote. So whether Rahm Emanuel picked it or whether one of the Clinton people nominated her is irrelevant. Obama's got a twofer here.
And, look, as I say, the odds that she could be stopped are long. Perhaps the biggest pitfall she faces is her own confirmation hearings. She might slip up there and might say something that would give the opposition a home run. But even then they're going to have to be willing to take advantage of it. By the way, do you know that Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito? Barack Obama opposed them both, and in both cases -- of John Roberts, the current chief justice, and Samuel Alito -- he said, "Oh, they're perfectly qualified and they've both got perfect judicial temperament. But I'm going to vote against them," because to him it's about ideology. It's about liberalism. He thought these two guys were conservatives, and it didn't matter to him what their judicial temperament or qualifications were. He voted against both of those.
So now he's got a hack. He got a party hack that he's put on the court that's likely to be confirmed. This is where the so-called moderate Republicans are completely useless if you ask me. When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate Senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge? You see, folks, we are confronting a radical assault on this nation, a radical assault today on the US Supreme Court, and moderates in the Republican Party are distracting our ability to organize the opposition. You know why the Democrats don't like me? You know why the Democrats don't like me and the media doesn't like me?
It's precisely because I'm the one doing the heavy lifting against them. Me and my buddies on talk radio and their leaders. I'm the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans. The truth be told... Do you know where Colin Powell stands on a single issue? Do you know where Tom Ridge stands on a single issue? Neither one of those guys was asked where they stand on a single issue in their Sunday show interviews. So what we're trying to do here is save the country, save our country from a party and an ideology that is systematically remaking it: the Democrat Party and liberalism. And if the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless. So this is where we are, and that's what I had to say about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored." Now, I say this again: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. "In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation," meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001. So there you have it.
END TRANSCRIPT
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I think this is the perfect time for you to start your teaching tour and for Republicans to start your teaching tour with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, to explain to the American people why originalist justices are the only option because I think that attacking Sotomayor directly is going to make the Republicans look as the bad guys rather than proactively taking a step to explain why Article V of the Constitution should be the only means to amend the Constitution rather than a judicial fiat, and I want to know what you think about that.
RUSH: Well, you're asking me two things: "Should the Republican Party oppose Sonia Sotomayor?" and I will restate what I said in the first hour: Yes! Because opposing Sonia Sotomayor is how you tell the nation who Barack Obama is and isn't. That really what we're interested in having happen. Aren't we interested in having the American people figure out who it is they really voted for? Well, Sonia Sotomayor illustrates who Obama is, and that's the primary reason to oppose her because I don't think she can be stopped. She's got the votes in the Senate. So does Obama. It's a cliche, but elections have consequences. As far as my teaching tour is concerned, I'll take that under advisement. I reach a tremendous number of people via the EIB Network and the Golden EIB Microphone each and every day.
Now, you also wanted to talk about the originalists and why it is so crucial here that Republicans get the word out on her. Let me tell you why that's going to be very hard for elected Republicans to do. If you didn't hear it, let me see if we have it here in the sound bites. (muttering) Well, we don't have the exact bite. Cookie, I'm not looking for it. You don't need to give me the exact bite. But he started out, Obama did today, in making his announcement, he told a personal story that had everybody in the White House East Room crying. I mean, it's a touching personal story. It is an amazing personal story, quintessentially American. It doesn't say much about who she is, but it tells us a lot about this country. The thing about this story of hers that is really -- it is dynamic. There's no refuting it, and it's very personal, and it's very rewarding.
It's a deeply American story -- and I tell you that's going to be, first and foremost. When get to the Senate confirmation hearings, that's what people are going to hear and that's going to make it even harder for Republicans to oppose it, because Republicans stands for the American dream, the ordinary doing extraordinary things. She even used that phrase today to describe herself. I'm the first to use that phrase that I know of. "America is the place where ordinary people can become extraordinary, do extraordinary things." So that personal story of hers is going to silence a lot of Republican opposition, and that's its purpose. What needs to be said about her personal story is that it all happened during a period of time Barack Obama is ripping to shreds and criticizing tremendously.
It happened during the eighties. It happened during the Reagan years. It happened during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. It happened during the Clinton years. Now, this is important to me because Barack Obama is a president who is apologizing for America everywhere he goes. America was imperfect. It was not good. It was not just. It is now because he's been elected. But it wasn't. And yet here is this minority female Latina. She's Puerto Rican. She grew up in the south Bronx. Her father died when she was eight or nine. She was diagnosed with diabetes. As Obama said today, she was told that because of her diabetes and because of her minority status she'd never get anywhere and yet she got into Princeton and then she got into Yale Law and then she got on all these courts. She worked for Morgenthau in the DA's office in Manhattan.
She's done it all. That shouldn't have been possible in the America Obama believes in. Sonia Sotomayor, if you listen to Barack Obama, should not be. We should never have heard of her. America was imperfect and unjust -- and yet look at what she did, how she triumphed. I don't think anybody's going to get into how because it would only distract, but nevertheless she did. All of these policies there were supposedly anti-minority, all of them racism, all of the anti-womenism -- all of these isms that were supposedly preventing minorities from getting anywhere -- and Sonia Sotomayor rises to the highest level of the appellate court system all during Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush! It's not possible. So in confronting the personal story that they're going to tell about her, which will inspire some to tears...
And that story is designed to shut any critic up. "How could you oppose this woman? Have you no heart? Have you no compassion? Have you no empathy? Look at all that she's had to overcome!" So those will be the requirements. Those will be the qualifications that they say Sonia Sotomayor has. Then they'll get to her judicial record which they're going to have to kind of soft-pedal because she gets overturned all the time. She's reprimanded by other Democrat judges for not being on point, for not being constitutional. She has said in public that a judge's job is to make policy. Lady Justice is blind. You're not supposed to know the race, the sex, the gender, the income level. All of these things that a litigant has doesn't matter. Justice is blind. Her justice isn't, and neither is Obama's. So we got a very radical pick. We have a very radical president nominating a radical pick, and he's using her story to continue to convey this notion of "empathy," and that's what we need on the court. 'Cause, you know, there's so much discrimination out there, and there's so much unfairness.
There's so much majority tyranny, it's just so unfair, and we need people like Sonia Sotomayor to recognize it and to accommodate those realities in adjudicating cases. And yet with all this unfairness, all this discrimination, all of this imperfection, all the rotgut that America is, she managed to overcome it all. It shouldn't be possible, should it? So if I were a Republican on the committee, I'd acknowledge the story. I congratulate her on the story. I congratulate her and her mother, her father for raising her right and her mother for inspiring her. And then I'd point out, this isn't supposed to be possible in America prior to today, and yet look what she did. America is a great country. And then start talking about her lack of judicial qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. You can do it all. Will they? No. Because the Republican moderates are just dying to get as many Hispanic votes next election as they can. So they've been boxed in here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Todd in Detroit. Great to have you with us. Hello.
CALLER: Mega self-employed dittos, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Hey listen, I just was wondering if we could do worse if Judge Sotomayor was rejected. I mean, the thought of Jennifer Granholm being appointed to the Supreme Court just frightens me, especially a life appointment. I mean, coming from the liberal utopia of Michigan, slash, Detroit I just couldn't imagine it.
RUSH: Well, but wouldn't you like to get rid of her?
CALLER: Yeah, but then we gotta deal her for life, and look at the damage she's done to Michigan. Can you imagine?
RUSH: Yeah, but she's just one vote on the court. In Michigan she's the whole show, and we see what's happened to Michigan.
CALLER: Well, she's term limited, she's out anyway, Rush.
RUSH: I really don't think Granholm's on anybody's short list.
CALLER: Well, the way they talk around here, the liberals think she's the best thing since Swiss cheese.
RUSH: Of course, so is Sotomayor. I tell you who everybody thought it was going to be, was Diane Wood. Look, I don't think you can -- Todd, this is really tough. You can't do worse than this and the reason that you can't do worse than this is that this woman does not use the law. I don't care what liberal judge Obama finds, it's going to be bad for the law. It doesn't matter who it is. This woman may be as radically bad as the Supreme Court could get simply because of her jurisprudence. She's been smacked down by appellate courts, by the Supreme Court. She's been smacked down by fellow judges on the appellate court, Jose Cabranes. We went through all it is in the first hour. But, you know, here's the thing.
I want to deal with this theory, "Hey, she's better than a lot of others we could get." Do you realize that the purpose here is not really keeping her stopping her because it isn't going to happen, I'm just being realistic, I'm not trying to be negative but you do have an opportunity here or at least the Republican Party has an opportunity here to educate the American people about Obama and who Obama is via his picks. You could do that with whoever he picks. If he woulda chosen Diane Wood, you coulda done the same thing. If he woulda chosen Granholm, coulda done the same thing. That's the opportunity that exists here. You always have to be positioning yourself for the future. There are no elections coming up, 2010, 2012. Votes in the Senate, she's probably going to get 75 or 80 votes in the Senate. I can't see the Republicans filibustering this in the committee. She's Hispanic and she's female. There's no way they're going to stop this because they don't want to. They're trying to get the Hispanic vote. Anyway, Todd, I appreciate it.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Raleigh, North Carolina. Great to have you, sir. You're next.
CALLER: Yes. Rush.
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: How you doing?
RUSH: Fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Thank you. Hey, first time home-school family dittos. I've got a question about the two remaining axis of evils. Within the last month we've heard of Iran shooting their long-term (sic) missiles and yesterday with North Korea detonating their nuclear device. What do they have to prove by doing this? It's a two part question. Are they inviting (cell drops) attack and will Israel react on its own?
RUSH: Why are the Iranians and North Koreans inviting attack?
CALLER: Why are they doing it? I know it's saber rattling, Rush, but it seems that they're being... um...
RUSH: All right, let's go back. Remember Joe "Loudmouth" Biden before the -- I think before the nomination, said they're going to be tested, and it's gonna be bad, and he begged the people (paraphrased), "Support us and love us then as you do now. We may make the wrong decision in your eyes." Now, I don't think the big test has happened. I don't know what Biden was talking about. Whatever it is hasn't happened. Let's stick with Iran first. Barack Obama last week said, "I give you to the end of the year." What's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do? Launches a test missile and continues talking about wiping Israel off the map. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to win reelection by a landslide. Doesn't mean anything but it's going to be reported around the world.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who serves at the pleasure of the mullahs. It doesn't matter what the people say, is going to be reelected by a landslide. The media loves reporting dictators being reelected, even if they might pose a throat to Obama. It's a tough call for them but a dictator gets reelected, and they love it. This will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is also out there rattling even further sabers, indicating that they don't care what Obama says and they don't care what Netanyahu says. The Iranians and the North Koreans, the two remaining members of the axis of evil, are both defying the United States of America. They are conducting a trade show for nuclear weapon sales. North Korea is aiding Iran. North Korea on our Memorial Day supposedly lights off an underground nuke and launches three missiles. Did they wake Obama up for this? It happened Sunday night at one o'clock.
You were all asleep, I'm sure, when North Korea lit off its underground nuke and launched three weapons. Did they wake up Obama? Contrary to what was reported after the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, the media reported that Netanyahu walked out of there with his mind right, that Obama had given him the what-for. It's just the opposite. Netanyahu said, "Screw you! We are going to continue to build in our settlements, and if we have to take 'em out, we're going to take 'em out," meaning the Iranians -- which doesn't surprise me, Netanyahu being who Netanyahu is. The American Thinker has a piece on this today, "The remnant of the Axis of Evil delights in torturing our President.
"Not just with words -- but with carefully timed '3 a.m.' nuclear detonations and launches of inter-continental missiles capable of delivering WMDs. The North Koreans did so on Memorial Day, as well as in April as their riposte to Obama's Apology Trip to Europe. Tehran launched its own provocation last week. Listen to the official North Korean news agency: 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," hardy har-har, "successfully conduced one or more underground nuclear tests on May 25 as part of the measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way as requested by its scientists and technicians,' adding that 'the test was safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology control.'"
"President Obama responded with robust words: 'North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community,'" and then he told the UN to go do something about it. Then the UN supposedly had a meeting. Big whoop. The trouble is, every time they do some provocative we sort of back off. We issue words. By the way, let me find it here. I think I put it at the back of the stack, but it involves the Vice President, Dick Cheney. Yes. Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, right here. This is a story from MSNBC, and I found this over the weekend. "Dick Cheney 'Tried to Block North Korea Nuclear Deal'" during the Bush administration.
"The exchanges between Cheney's office and Rice's people at State got very testy. But ultimately Condi had the President's ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang," but Cheney opposed it all along. Bush warned the world about Iraq, Iran, North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union speech. They ridiculed it on the left. Bush later offered carrots to North Korea to suspend their programs at the urging of Condi. Didn't sit well with Cheney according to this account MSNBC, Dick Cheney tried to block North Korean deal. So they're testing. They are conducting a trade show. They're showing what they have to sell to people like Hugo Chavez, the North Koreans and the Iranians. So it's pretty serious stuff when these little malcontents start flexing their muscles on our Memorial Day and particularly after Obama has said... I mean, when he says, "I'll give 'em a year. I'll give them to the end of the year. I'll give the Iranians to the end of the year to accept our terms," or whatever. (snorts) Mahmoud and mullahs say, "Yeah? Take this!" and they launch an ICBM. Anyway, it doesn't matter, folks, because the world is going to love us even more. We'll close Gitmo, he says and we got Sonia Sotomayor nominated to the court. So all this has now been taken care of.
END TRANSCRIPT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
