Charlie Rose was a lousy, biased left-stream reporter and that made him a good candidate for ASU’s Walter Cronkite Award. Finally the Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recognized what an embarrassment Rose is to journalism and it’s taking back the award it gave to Rose two years. Variety reports:
TV journalist and talk show host Rose has been accused of sexually harassing several women and was fired by CBS. He apologized for ” inappropriate behavior” but said “I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate.”
“The Cronkite School is rescinding the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism given to Charlie Rose in 2015,” the statement read.
“This unprecedented action is taken with the utmost seriousness and deliberation. We are not in the business of trying to rewrite history.
“When new information about a recipient surfaces, the question we ask is not whether the award would be given again with a new set of facts, but whether the transgressions are so egregious that they demand nothing less than a reversal of history.”
A case of arson has shed light on the inherent dishonesty of the political Left once again. According to a report on left-stream Phoenix TV last night, a young man who formerly frequented an LGBT youth center in Phoenix tried to burn the place down. The center is run by the One in Ten organization, named after a lie that the Left has perpetuated for more than half a century.
In 1948, the pedophile Alfred Kinsey published a book claiming that 10 percent of American men are homosexual. His dubious “research” was not only slanted, but totally inaccurate, because it was based on prison inmates — not the general population. Kinsey and his team of derelicts reported on the sexuality of children which could only have been done by molesting these poor souls.
Truth comes slowly to the Left and the Left-stream media though. Today the University of Indiana is home to the Kinsey Institute, as if the man was an upstanding citizen.
Furthermore, the LGBT and its truth-challenged media friends still perpetuate the 10-percent lie. The Phoenix group, One in Ten, derives its name from this charade. A more accurate name would be One in 50 because only two percent of Americans are homosexual.
Additionally, in 1993 two homosexual activist/scientists — Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer — purported to have proven that a “gay gene” is what causes homosexuality. The Left-stream media went into hyper-drive over this claim. But the lie was soon exposed. Other researchers without an agenda proved the research hollow, and the activist/scientists had to admit they proved nothing. The New York Times hid its correction on page A19. Nevertheless, many in the Left-stream/fake news are still claiming there is truth to this falsehood.
Then again in 2005, more false media hype about the myth of a “gay gene” appeared on the internet. There is a greater likelihood of Bigfoot’s existence than this.
It’s time for these deluded people to accept the truth. Homosexuality is the result of one’s environment. And many self-avowed homosexuals were molested as children or alienated by abusive, disconnected fathers.
The current debate about transgenderism is also about truth vs. deception. If someone is so confused about whether they are male or female, the loving thing is to help them with counseling if they seek it. Which is in their own best interests. If someone has some psychological confusion about gender, it is not loving to encourage them in their confusion. Many men who had their male genitals snipped were later so distraught that they committed suicide. Others, like Walt Heyer, are now dedicated to shedding light on the truth and encouraging others not to make the same mistake they did.
Of course, for a long time we have seen anyone who disagrees with the LGBT activists to be attacked and destroyed. That’s why those lacking in courage — i.e., the Left-stream media — suck up to LGBT activists to try to stay on their good side and to perpetuate their agenda. It’s all about deceit and cowardice by these who want to bury the truth, to the detriment of suffering individuals.
The Weather Channel is now indoctrinating children to lecture to their parents about so-called “global warming.” But here are some inconvenient facts for these left-wing alarmists:
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A to Z — the promoters of manmade climate fears are falling short or going in the opposite direction.
- Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.
- The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
- Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
- Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
- Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
- Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
- So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
- A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
- 2016 Arctic sea ice was 22 percent greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.’
- Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
- Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Have climate change skeptics lost the climate debate?
No! Climate skepticism enjoys huge popularity in polling data, and every time a climate bill has come before the U.S. Congress it has failed to pass. There never was any real climate debate! One of the key reasons climate fear proponents don’t want to debate is what happened during a pivotal high-profile debate in 2007 in New York City, where skeptics were voted the clear winners against global warming proponents.
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized at losing that debate that he announced debates equally split between believers in a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again. And climate change promoters listened, with debates becoming rarer and rarer.
In fact, instead of engaging in debates, prominent climate activists now call for jailing skeptics. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., declared he wanted to jail his climate skeptics. “They ought to be serving time for it,” Kennedy said in 2014.
For more, click here:
Former Arizona Senator Carolyn Allen has died at the age of 78, after suffering many years from the scourge of rheumatoid arthritis.
The late senator was hailed as a heroine by the left-stream flag carrier for our state, The Arizona Republic, and leftists on both sides of the political aisle. Allen was praised for her support of the arts and for warring against conservatives.
Allen also deserves credit for helping Democrat Janet Napolitano defeat conservative Matt Salmon in the 2002 governor’s election. She helped suppress Republican support for Salmon in Scottsdale by criticizing him in public, and he lost by one percent of the vote. Napolitano, who spent Arizona into massive debt, over-performed among Republicans in Scottsdale and that made the difference in her election.
Planned Parenthood lost a great friend in Allen. In a state legislative biography booklet, she described herself as a “Planned Parenthood activist.”
Intolerant of her opponents, Allen once saw the executive director of Arizona Right to Life in the state Senate lobby and bluntly exclaimed, “I didn’t know they allowed crooks in here.”
Allen was also a friend of Big Government, amnesty and homosexual pressure groups. While she faithfully clung to her “Republican Party” affiliation, it was the GOP platform principles she distained.
Amid a long absence from the legislature due to illness, The Arizona Conservative expressed concern about her constituents being disenfranchised and called on Allen to resign and devote herself to getting well. She later sent an email to our editor threatening him with physical harm.
The former chairwoman of the GOP legislative district in Scottsdale exhorted Allen to train up current Secretary of State Michelle Reagan, then a state representative. But Reagan was already comfortably established in Planned Parenthood’s abortion camp.
Conservatives repeatedly tried to beat Allen at election time, but the liberals in Scottsdale kept re-electing her until she retired from public office.
By Tony Perkins
Last night was supposed to belong to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But the biggest story of the first debate wasn’t the candidates answering the questions — it was the person asking them. In one of the most talked-about plots of the first head-to-head, moderator Lester Holt seemed intent on making the debate a three-person affair — injecting himself with almost as many challenges to Trump as the person officially opposing him. For most of the night, the Republican nominee was fending off not one — but two — attackers, repeatedly put on the defensive with topics that had nothing to do with the major issues facing America.
Meanwhile, the former Secretary of State, who’s probably spent as much time under investigation by Congress as she did as a Member of it, skated by virtually unscathed by Holt’s one-sided fact-checking. While he fiercely pressed Trump on his tax returns and concerns over President Obama’s birthplace, he couldn’t spare a single question on the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, her role in Benghazi, or the intentional deletion of tens of thousands of sensitive emails, or her outrageous “basket of deplorables” comment. Social media lit up with criticism for the NBC anchor, who many accused of shilling for the Clintons.
Holt’s bias is difficult to argue when you consider that he interrupted Trump 41 times demanding clarification — six times the amount he interrupted Clinton (seven). He “emerged as bruised and partisan,” The Hill argued. “Holt entered the evening largely respected as non-partisan. He [exits] as the toast of left-leaning media…” Part of the problem was Holt’s lack of focus. At a time when America is dealing with terror attacks on our own soil, a military in complete disarray, and a culture melting down before our very eyes, voters deserved to hear about more important things than Trump’s tax returns.
As for the actual substance of the debate, viewers were probably surprised to see a more restrained version of Donald Trump than they’re used to. Trump landed plenty of good jabs on America’s devastating trade and Iranian deals, but sidestepped some key opportunities to go on offense, especially when it came to Clinton’s email scandal — which made up a whopping 15 seconds of the hour and a half event. “I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s issues — when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted,” he said. It was almost surreal, then, when the former Secretary of State tried to talk about the importance of cyber security — after committing one of the most dangerous breaches of it in U.S. history. “We are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information,” Clinton had the audacity to declare, after risking countless lives with her own carelessness on top-secret emails.
The real estate mogul’s biggest payoff came in the first 30 minutes when he assumed complete control of the economic issues, hammering back on the Left’s prosperity-is-evil doctrine. Of course, the reason liberals hate personal success is because it makes people less reliant on the government they’re desperate to grow. Wisely, Trump refused to run from his success and instead embraced it as an example of what’s possible when Americans are left (unburdened by Washington) to pursue their own ingenuity. Clinton, meanwhile, was all but drowning in her disgust of the more fortunate, alienating plenty of voters along the way with her mockery of the trickle-down economics made famous by Ronald Reagan.
Like the ghost of former Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, she recycled old talking points about the ineffectiveness of the approach (which happened to produce three times as many net jobs as President Obama’s debt-funded “recovery”). Then she continued her party’s push to make government the unofficial police of income equality. That’s not only a terrible idea, but an unnecessary one, as author Arthur Brooks points out in his book Who Really Cares. Combing through piles of financial data, he found that the 30 percent of Americans who think the government should do little or nothing about economic inequality gave away, on average, four times more of their income than the 43 percent who said the government should do something. And the majority of those Americans are religious. Conservatives — the same ones who oppose this redistribution of wealth — are among the most generous people on earth. But contrary to Hillary Clinton, they call what they give to churches contributions, and what they give the government, taxes.
It was one of the many profound differences in philosophy on display last night. Another was the role of the judicial system. In a largely overlooked section of the debate, the Yale Law School graduate declared that the courts had struck down the Stop-and-Frisk program because it “did not do what it needed to do.” “Stop-and-frisk,” she insisted, “was found to be unconstitutional, in part, because it was ineffective.” As Secretary Clinton well knows, however, such a simplistic characterization of the law based on the specific circumstances in one case is not accurate; the procedure is perfectly legal in many situations. Secretary Clinton owes the American voter an honest assessment of the problems she attempts to describe – as these voters are already weary of activist judges of dishonest politicians.
By the end of the night, if voters wanted a clear contrast, they found it. In one candidate, they have a continuation of the last eight years. In the other, an agent of change who terrifies the Left. Let’s pray America chooses wisely. For more on the stark differences between the two candidates, check out FRC Action’s updated presidential voter guide, available here. For more on my reaction from inside the debate hall, make sure to follow me on Twitter @TPerkins
Now that Mrs. Bill Clinton has wrapped up the Democrat Party nomination for the presidential election, it’s time to examine her past and who she really is:
As U.S. Senator from New York, Mrs. Bill Clinton’s chief accomplishment was winning a debate against her Republican election opponent.
As secretary of state, she intentionally lied when she insisted America’s consulate in Benghazi was attacked because of a Youtube video that was critical of Islam.
Mrs. Clinton is currently under investigation for using a private server to store classified government documents.
Also, Clinton is a member of the “National Organization for Women Who Approve of Elected Male Officials Who Have Abused Women but Support Abortion Rights.”
Clinton supports Planned Parenthood, which is on defense in several courts for refusing to protect under-age girls from rapists, under investigation for defrauding the government of millions of dollars and under investigation for illegally selling baby body parts. She says abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
She said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom is a slippery slope for women – even though the nation has no history of forcing employers to violate their consciences and provide abortion drugs.
Fought in 1993 for the U.S. to fast-track government approval of RU-486, a dangerous drug which has killed several women and girls and caused complications for many more.
She supported the grisly, barbaric practice of partial-birth infanticide.
She supposedly supports women’s rights, but paid her women staffers at the Department of State less than men.
She is a big fan of the late Saul Alinsky and practices his Rules for Radicals – the book he dedicated to Lucifer — in all of her political activities. He invited her to work for him as a community agitator. Clinton says she believes in tactics over principles.
As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton attempted – in secret meetings — to force socialism and government medical insurance on the nation, but failed.
She made up lies to try to justify the firing of White House Travel Bureau employees, allegations which were proven false.
She said the unborn have no rights.
Mrs. Clinton enabled her husband’s rampant womanizing by trashing the women who were used and abused by himd – rather than sympathizing with them and acknowledging a very serious problem.
Clinton wanted the U.S. to apologize for slavery.
She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, then said she “evolved” on same-sex marriage.
Also, she supports “hate” crimes laws. Even though all crimes are commited with contempt for the victim.
She wrote an op-ed claiming Common Core was recycled Clinton policy from the 1980s and 1990s. She opposes school vouchers.
Clinton believes in so-called manmade “global warming” and supports the Kyoto Treaty and cap and trade policy.
Plagiarized the title of the book “It Takes a Village.” Author Jonah Goldberg said of the book: “No more thorough explication of the liberal fascist agenda can be found than in Hillary Clinton’s best-selling book, “It Takes a Village.” All the hallmarks of the fascist enterprise reside within its pages.” Clinton learned from Marian Wright Edelman how to use children as propaganda tools for her ideological agenda: childhood is a crisis, and the government must come to the rescue. “I cannot say enough in support of home visits,” Clinton said.
Big government advocate.
Clinton said Wall Street donates to me because I rebuilt them after 9/11.
She voted against voter ID, though the Democrats require photo ID to attend their national conventions.
Clinton wants tough gun control and says gun manufacturers should be subject to lawsuits (for individuals’ behavior).
She says that because she is a woman she is a political outsider.
If elected president, Mrs. Clinton says Bill Clinton will advise her and represent the U.S. abroad.
She considers herself a member of the “Christian Left.” It’s a religion whose “god” is government.
She voted against the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Clinton is proud of the controversial nuclear agreement with Iran in which the U.S. got taken for a ride.
As a U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton delivered a half-billion dollars in earmarks to 59 corporations. Then 64 percent of those corporations donated to her campaign.
She said she flew into Bosnia in 1996 and ran through sniper fire on the ground. Video showed a calm, peaceful deplaning, and Clinton later called the lie a “minor blip.”
The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars in exchange for political favors by Hillary and Bill Clinton, and it is still happening today. The Clintons have accepted illegal campaign cash from convicted criminals like Mauricio Celis, of Mexico, and Norman Hsu, of Hong Kong. They pardoned Mark Rich after his wife gave them a huge donation
In his book, “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg wrote: Clinton “is a representative figure, the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. … What follows, then, is a group portrait of Hillary and her friends – the leading proponents and exemplars of liberal fascism in our time.”
She was offered an internship in the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Truehaft, a communist who fought for the Stalinist faction the California labor movement.
As an attorney in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton wrote articles in favor of children’s “rights” to divorce their parents. Goldberg wrote: “Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic, and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life – a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. … She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities … because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form.” She believes families hold children back and the state sets them free. “Hillary Clinton’s ideas are, in general, fascist.”
Hillary’s guru was Rabbi Michael Lerner, who authored The New Socialist Revolution. He wrote of the coming socialist take-over.
One of Hillary Clinton’s most outrageous statements: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
From today’s Rush Limbaugh radio program:
RUSH: So it apparently is the case that Ted Cruz decided between midnight and 2 a.m. Monday — well, Tuesday morning. Early Tuesday morning, late Monday night, before the voting began in Indiana, Ted Cruz decided to get out if he didn’t do well in Indiana. He didn’t tell very many people. A limited number of staff tried to talk him out of it. His mind was made up. Now, it’s interesting that that’s before Trump on Fox & Friends yesterday accused Cruz’s dad of consorting with Lee Harvey Oswald. But even without that, I wonder…
I have not spoken to Senator Cruz, and I probably could get through if I picked up the phone. But there are just some things here that I assume. I know a lot of you in the audience were very sad when Cruz announced that he was not gonna continue, that many of you had unbelievably high hopes and a lot invested, because on paper here we had somebody that was — a Republican that was — actually conservative, who actually could implement the things that you and I all believe and wasn’t the establishment and so forth.
I don’t… The thing I don’t know — and, as I say, I could find out. But I’m gonna surmise some things with the caveat/proviso that I could be wrong here. Many people sent me notes last night saying, “Rush, are you finally gonna admit that conservatism is dead now? Are you just…? Are you gonna…? Rush, are you finally going to come to grips with the fact that conservatism has never been the big, majority way of thinking in this country? How can you look at what’s becoming of this country, what’s become of it in the last 10, 15 years and say that conservatism dominates anything?”
And I know that there are many people running around saying similar things to that today. But I don’t think conservatism died last night. I don’t think conservatism is being buried in Indiana. I think what happened is that another conservative messenger was systematically, piece by piece, destroyed. Which is the normal course of things. For all of you who think that conservatism is dead and on its last legs, why does it remain the single greatest threat feared by the Democrat Party and the American left?
Now, there are many answers to that question, but one of them surely is they fear conservatism. They know how many Americans are conservative, and they know what percentage of the country is. The left and people I’m talking about know full well they are a small minority. I’m talking about the committed activist types are a small minority. They have succeeded in governing against the will of the American people for I don’t know how long now.
They fear conservatism more than they fear any foreign enemy. They are far more mobilized and animated and intent on destroy conservatives and conservatism than they are any other foreign threat. That would not be the case if it was insignificant. Now, understandably, too, I have to admit that one of the aspects of the thought process of the American left is they don’t like opposition, period, no matter who it is. And they don’t believe in debating and they don’t believe in a debate in the arena of ideas and triumphing that way.
They snuff out opposition.
They eliminate it.
There’s no such thing as a level playing field.
Their opponents don’t even get on the field. That’s the strategy: “Don’t even let ’em on the field.” Now, I’m sure that Cruz was prepared, as prepared as he could be, and I’m sure his family was prepared as they could be for what was going to happen, given how he had arrived at his prominent position in the Republican nominee field. He knew he had made enemies of the Republican establishment, and he knew that the media and the Democrat Party are automatic enemies. But here’s what I don’t know.
I just don’t know just how equipped anybody is to cheerfully, happily live each and every day with the kind of garbage, lies, filth spewed about you and your family multiple times a day, and yet we’re told that the conservative must be cheerful and must be happy and must be a happy warrior. Well, how does that work, you know, when they’re out there saying you’re the Zodiac Killer? You stop and think of that for just a second. Put yourself in Ted Cruz’s shoes. And let’s establish some givens. A, Ted Cruz loves America much as anybody.
Ted Cruz desperately fears America’s on the wrong track and desperately wants to stop it and turn it around and save it. Ted Cruz reveres the Constitution of the United States, knows it backwards and forwards. Ted Cruz reveres the founding. Ted Cruz is religious. That means he is a person who does his best each and every day to live according to the morality that he believes. And then he has to get up every day and read stories in the media about how he is too mean and he is so vicious and so Hitler-like that his daughters will not even be in the same room with him because he scares them so much.
I mean, the stuff that was said about Cruz and his family long before the Rafael Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald stuff started, long before the Zodiac Killer stuff started? It’s nothing that any other conservative had to put up with, don’t misunderstand. My question is: How does how does anybody go through that? I mean, you’re running for president. You have these desperately held beliefs. You think that we’re in a national crisis. You’re frustrated because so many people don’t see it that way. You’re hell-bent on convincing them.
You’re hell-bent on trying to explain to them why you’re doing what you’re doing. You’re very earnest about it. You care about it so much that you’re doing everything you can to get people to listen to you. And every time you open your mouth, some fool is out making fun of you, destroying you with lies and innuendo and so forth. And at some…? Do you not at some point say, “This can’t be done. If 38 percent of the people of Florida can be convinced that I am the Zodiac killer, how do you stay cheerful?” At some point do you not just say to yourself…
And again, I don’t know. I may be putting myself in Cruz’s shoes and imagining how I would react to things that have been said about him that are demonstrably not true, that everybody laughs about. It would be… (interruption) Yeah, but I can’t… (interruption) Snerdley says, “You’ve gone through much worse than that.” No, I haven’t gone through much worse. I’ve gone through similar. (interruption) Yes, I know, I know. I’ve gone through similar. But… (interruption) The staff is saying, “You’ve gone through 27 years!”
Well, yes. I’m still cheerful, and the audience still is here and so forth. All true. But, see, unlike in politics, I can take all that. As I told you, I had to make a big psychological adjustment very early on. Nobody is raised to want to be hated. Nobody is raised to want to be disliked and laughed at and reviled and made fun of every day, and have some of the most outrageous things said about ’em. I had to learn. In order to put up with that for 27 years, I had to learn how to take it as a sign of success, which that’s… Try that psychologically.
Try trying to tell yourself that being hated by 30 percent of the people that hear you means you’re succeeding. Nobody’s raised that way. But in politics you can’t get anywhere with people hating you. I mean, I can have 30 percent of the people thinking I’m the Zodiac Killer, and it’s not gonna stop them from listening. It may even make ’em want to listen more. But in politics, you’re running for president, and they tell people that you’re the Zodiac Killer, that your dad was there with Lee Harvey Oswald?
There’s no way to make that, to transfer that into some measure of success in a political campaign. So I just wonder if at some point Cruz said, “I love my family too much. I mean, I know they agreed. I know my family understood what we’re getting into here. But there’s always a ‘but.'” Here’s the point. I don’t know. Maybe ask Senator Cruz about it sometime. But the point is that along with Cruz’s defeat comes the cheerful hammering of nails into the coffin that will bury conservatism. And, I’m sorry: Conservatism is not buried after last night.
Conservatism didn’t die.
How many people supporting Donald Trump think that he is, in one way or another? There are a lot of conservatives supporting Trump. A lot of people that participated in those 2010, 2014 mid-terms that gave Republicans landslide victories, are supporting Trump. Some of them know he’s not one of them. That call that we got from the guy in Philadelphia? That call has resonated through the Drive-By Media like you can’t believe. There have been whole columns written on that call and what it means in terms of the Republican establishment.
The guy’s name was Sean. He’s a life-time listener of the program, was calling from Philadelphia, and the upshot of it was that he admitted 80 percent of what Trump says he disagrees with, but he’s voting for him anyway because Trump is going to fight. You know, this business about the Republican Party… Like the Boston Globe: The Republicans commited suicide. The Republicans were committing suicide by signing on to amnesty. This is what you and I all understand that they don’t.
Every Democrat issue they sign on with, every Chamber of Commerce issue that they sign on to may as well be a gun, a bullet in the suicide gun that the Republican Party’s using. And this guy calling, he’s pretty much saying the same thing. “Look, I’m fed up with them. They don’t fight back. They say they’re going to, but they don’t. They ask us for money and they ask us for votes.” He was well spoken, and he said, “What matters is Trump is gonna fight ’em.” I said, “What about Cruz?” He said, “Well, I’ll vote for Cruz if he’s nominee.
“But Cruz isn’t gonna fight ’em like Trump is. Cruz isn’t gonna fight ’em. I don’t want hear how a guy’s conservative every day. That’s not what matters to me. I don’t…” Guy’s the biggest conservative in the race. “Big deal! What are you gonna do with it? What are you gonna do about this?” He was thoroughly convinced that Trump’s gonna fight back against everything that he thinks — the caller thinks — is going wrong. That’s the faith that he has invested in Trump. And he’s a conservative. He’s one of us.
There are a lot of them.
Conservatism didn’t die. Conservatism’s not being buried. Conservatism, whether people know it or not, is still how most people (dare I say, “productive people”) live their lives today. It’s how most people wish to — and hope they can — raise their kids. They may not even know it. Many of them are not ideological conservatives. They don’t run around and say, “I’m conservative,” and then tell you what they are. In fact, some of them who are conservative don’t want to use that word because they don’t want to get snickered at. They don’t want to be laughed at.
But conservatism didn’t die, and I don’t want anybody out there thinking that it did. Now, back to Justin, our caller in the previous hour. He said that he believes if Trump’s gonna win, he’s gotta reach out to conservatives. And I’m gonna tell you, there’s a grain of truth to that in this sense: Every four years it’s conservatives who are told they have to unify. It’s conservatives who are told they have to bite the bullet. And I think in this circumstance right now, Trump could help himself immensely.
If he would surround himself with, say, cabinet appointments or announce cabinet appointments or some genuine conservative people who are in his immediate orb, it would send a signal to people. Whether he listens to ’em or not, we’ll never know. Well, we will know at some point, but it’s a good policy. Here’s another thing to remember, though, folks. It is true to say that we’re always the ones that have to bite the bullet and unify. Well, that does, sadly, go along with Trump. Trump is under no compunction to move to the losing side or what he might perceive to be the losing side.
Now, if he has grace, and if he really wants to unify, be inclusive, he’ll do that on his own, but he’s not required to. Nobody is. No winner is required to reach out to the losers and say, “Come on in!” It’s the losers that have to get with the program. That’s just… I know some of you have not been taught losing in school. (interruption) Well, what are you shaking your head? Do you think…? (interruption) Is that too coarse to say?
RUSH: Here’s Jennifer, Spokane, Washington. You’re next. Great to have you with us on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you so much for taking my call today.
RUSH: You bet. You bet.
CALLER: I’ve been listening to you since 1989, and I’m just a big fan. So this is very exciting for me.
RUSH: Thank you very. I appreciate that.
CALLER: I just wanted to say that Ted Cruz is an honest, godly, awesome man, and the only reason that I think that he had to drop out and that he lost — that he’s not won as many states as projected — is because of the lies that have been perpetrated about him. Donald Trump goes to the media and gets way more airtime than Ted Cruz ever gets, and when he says outrageous lies about Ted Cruz, nobody says anything. So the lie is out there, and it’s assumed to be truth, and it’s not. And you can’t… It’s almost impossible to fight that. Donald Trump has completely taken Ted Cruz’s honor and his name — his good name — and because of that, I cannot vote in good conscience. I cannot vote for Donald Trump.
RUSH: It wasn’t just Trump, though, and it’s not just Cruz.
CALLER: It wasn’t. Yeah.
RUSH: They do it to Republicans. It happens to every Republican, no matter how conservative they are or not. Now, it may be the way —
RUSH: No wait. This is… Jennifer, this is important. Because they did it to Reagan, too. But he was able to overcome it. These are things we’re gonna have to figure out and learn. And, by the way… Well, we’ll stick with that. You know, Reagan was reviled and hated. You might not remember. You might not have been old enough back then. But trust me. Reagan was as hated as Cruz is. They accused Ronald Reagan of sneaking into Lafayette Park at night and stealing cans of pork and beans from the homeless. They blamed AIDS on Ronald Reagan ’cause he never said the word. They blamed…
They accused Reagan of wanting people to get AIDS and die. They accused Reagan of being responsible for all of that because he wouldn’t talk about it. He had no compassion for it or any of that, so he was anti-gay. He was anti-this. It was vicious. And yet Reagan won two landslides. Now, there’s a reason why. And it’s not just conservatism. There have to be other things at play. Now, I’m not… You’re right about Cruz was destroyed.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: But every Republican always is. You start out that way. I’m not excusing it. I’m with you on it. I have great empathy for Senator Cruz and his family having to go through some of this stuff. Especially, you know, when you start out and you’re Cruz. Really you’re on almost a crusade, a mission to save America. There’s no greater calling. You’re gonna give everything about your life to it. You’re gonna give your entire existence. You’re gonna put your family through it. You’ve gotten their permission. They’ve signed on for it. They’re helping out and so forth.
And then every day to see yourself disfigured this way, and then to see people laughing about it. But it happened to Rubio. And it wasn’t just Trump. But the Lyin’ Ted stuff stuck. I tell you, I was here every day saying, “Cruz is not a liar.” I was chastising Trump for saying that. Whatever you want to say about Ted Cruz, he’s not a liar. Then let’s not even give into the idea that they were able to convince people that Ted Cruz was stealing delegates.
It just became too much to overcome. That’s the kind of thing that in the normal, everyday ebb and flow of politics, you’d get a gold star. That was brilliant maneuvering what Cruz was doing. It was the only option open to him. It was right in line with the rules. It’s how Abraham Lincoln became president, by the way! And they’re out there hammering Cruz with it, and he didn’t explain it, when given the chance.
I mean, he could have taken any number of questions and turned it into a teachable moment about the American political system. And he was trying to do that with that Trump supporter he crossed the street on Monday to go talk to in Indiana. This is why my point is conservatism has not died. Conservatism… By the way, it can’t. I’ve made the case: You cannot kill off conservatism. You can have dictatorships, and you can set up one, but still you cannot kill off conserve because it’s in the heart.
But everything conservatism holds dear is under assault right now, including attacks on Western Civilization. This country is under assault from all over the world. But for the first time we’ve got a genuine force inside the borders who is also as part of the attack. Disguised — disguised, by the way — as trying to correct all the flaws that America was founded with. Anyway, I have to take a break. I’m glad you called, Jennifer. Thank you so much.
RUSH: This is Louie in Edison, New Jersey. It’s great to have you with us. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call, Rush. Just before I make my point and ask you my question, you said on your show many times that if you listen for a week… You know, let a liberal listen for a week and they’ll be committed. Just over the weekend, a buddy of mine from Maryland came over and I was discussing, you know, what you said, and he told me — interestingly so — he knows a friend of his that’s a prosecutor in Silver Spring, Maryland, who was a flaming liberal. And his wife was somewhat of a conservative and told him to listen to you for a week, and he is a passionate conservative now.
CALLER: It’s fascinating.
RUSH: Normally it takes six weeks, but this happened in one week, you say?
CALLER: One week.
RUSH: See, folks, there’s reason here to be cheerful and optimistic. I appreciate that story. Thank you for telling me that.
CALLER: Thank you. My question is, I don’t think at all… And I want to know what you think about this. I don’t think at all conservatism died at all. I think morality died. Just the way the media, which is the face of the cultural rot in this country, destroyed Cruz. They never destroyed him on the conservative issues, so conservatism did not die. Morality, right and wrong died. But at the same time — and my question to you is — can you have a conservative movement when there is no distinction between right and wrong? And what worries me is I will support Donald Trump even though I was a Ted Cruz supporter. You know, I will support Trump because I’m worried about the Supreme Court, et cetera, and I think he’ll be under pressure to put right-wing justices on the court. But my question to you is, how can there be a conservative vision for the country when, to a certain extent, it represents — it’s synonymous with — that cultural rot of the media?
RUSH: Interesting question. You know, you’re asking me basically to combine morality with conservatism, and you think that we can’t have one without the other. The first thing I want to address is your terminology. I’ve been thinking about this. “Conservative movement.” I’m not sure so sure there is one. And by that I mean this campaign has exposed the fact that there isn’t one. I mean, so many people that I’m sure a lot of you thought were part of the conservative movement, wanted no part of Ted Cruz. And you’re out there scratching your heads.
Admittedly some of them wanted no part of Trump, but there was a lot of conservative… You would think, in terms of media, individual commentators, certain elected Republicans. Probably you can think of examples on your own of people that you thought, “If there was a conservative movement, they’re in it.” And when you think of conservative movement, you think of a unified, like-minded bunch of people. I don’t think it exists anymore. I don’t know that it has for quite a while. Conservatism’s been at war with itself almost as much as it has been at war with liberalism, in the recent years.
How many recent years… I’d have to really apply myself and think about it to give you concrete examples. But tell me this: If there is a conservative movement, who is the leader? (interruption) No. I am not, because… (interruption) No, no, no, no. (interruption) No, no. (interruption) No, no. No, no. (interruption) There isn’t one, is the point. There isn’t a singular conservative figure that every other conservative goes to for guidance, inspiration, motivation, definition. Now, you could ask, “Was there one of those?”
Well, yeah. I mean back… There was a conservative movement once, and you would say that — and this is some years ago now. William F. Buckley could be said to have been the intellectual engine and head of the conservative movement, and it was Buckley to whom people back then looked. But when William Buckley passed away, there became — and it was going on before he died, too. But there was internal competitions within the conservative movement for that position. Leader of the conservative movement.
Who is it that personifies, embodies, and defines the movement? There isn’t such a person today. Conservatism has erected litmus tests and happily, happily wants to excommunicate people from the so-called movement. But clearly, if there’s a movement, somebody show me where it’s unified and show me where it has a purpose. Show me where you can find, in fact, unified definitions or explanations of positions conservatives hold issue to issue to issue. How many conservatives do you know who would just as soon everybody that’s a social conservative get broomed away and silenced?
You talk about morality and conservatism, and how can you have…? How can you erase the whole concept of right and wrong and still have conservatism. Yeah, but morality’s always been a bugaboo for people. Morality always has been, because nobody’s perfect. It’s impossible. Nobody is morally pure, and so it’s very difficult to stand in judgment of other people morally, but there are those who do and those who try, and they offend people — particularly leftists. But I agree with you. I think our culture is rotting away before our eyes. The thing about that is that there’s no changing it. There’s no president that’s gonna change it. Cultural changes are generationally evolutionary, and I don’t think the generation that is gonna be born and refuses to accept the garbage they inherit from their parents and grandparents, has been born yet.
RUSH: I want to share with you a fascinating little email that I received during the course of the program today. It addresses… We had a call here talking about morality and how morality and conservatism… If we obliterate the whole notion of right and wrong, then how can we also have conservatism?
The email is from a Trumpist who claims to be a conservative. “Cruz Is a Godly Leader and Will Be Used Again,” is the subject line. The email is: “I don’t believe this has anything to do with people not wanting conservatism or not wanting morality. We do want it. This country has come so far down from where we were with Reagan, that even if I would love Ted Cruz to be our president, and I would love to have the Bible back in school — how much just that would help our country? And I think Cruz might have been able to do that.
“But our country has fallen so low into immorality and liberalism that Cruz — as 100 percent moral and 100 percent conservative — can’t win in the climate we have today. Trump, okay, maybe 40 percent conservative, but he has a chance to actually win. And I, Rush, will take 40 percent conservative now and work our way back up to maybe 50 percent next time. We just have to get back the office of the presidency with an outsider. Cruz would be amazing, but this election, from where we are, 100 percent conservative is gonna be rejected every day. It’s too scary to people. It’s too stark.
“It’s too drastic a change. I pray that will not be the case in years to come. Sent from my iPhone.” So there you have a Trump supporter explaining how she would love it to be Cruz, but doesn’t think Cruz could ever win this year, because the country is just not prepared to put on the screeching brakes and do a 180 — a 180-degree turn — in one election.
RUSH: Here’s Amanda in Wellington, Florida. Great to have you with us. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. I just wanted to make a comment that I don’t think there’s any way Cruz really could have won right now, nor really should he have. People are hurting. They need relief right now, and Cruz stands for amazing things, and I think he would be incredible, and I hope he does get his shot at it. But right now Trump is speaking to the masses whether people are admitting it or not because people are hurting. I mean, look at that $400, you know, could somebody come up with it.
RUSH: Yeah, it’s amazing isn’t it?
CALLER: And that’s where I think he’s getting everybody, and people can’t see it. Well, how do you not see it? ‘Cause… I don’t know. It’s just my thought.
RUSH: No, I think… Look, I know what you’re saying, and I have similar beliefs. My job with the Kansas City Royals, when I had it, was marketing. And the one thing… We had a marketing plan. Every season, we had a theme, and the designed purpose of the theme was to get more people to come to the ballpark, which meant buying tickets. But we never announced how we were gonna do it. We just designed the plan and then we implemented it.
It would be counterproductive to say, “Here is our plan this year to separate you from your money.” Well, by the same token, I think to run around saying, “I’m the most conservative guy! I’m the conservative you can trust! I’m the…” Just do it. Just go out there and be it. Telegraphing it at this particular point might make it a bigger target than it otherwise would be.
America has lost one of its greatest defenders of freedom. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has tragically died at age 79 — leaving leftists salivating for a complete capture of the Supreme Court.
And if the Supreme Court swings to the Left, your freedom will go with it.
A district judge in Texas said he thinks there will be no action on a nominee to replace Scalia, but that is naïve thinking.
Of course President Obama and his fellow travelers will do everything they can to seize this opportunity to put judicial activists in complete control of America’s judicial system, from the very top on down.
Our only hope is to convince U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham and other Senate Republicans to vote down any nominee Obama presents. These people have let us down before and confirmed two nominees. They should not make it a third.
There is absolutely no doubt that Obama will try to strong-arm a radical nominee through the confirmation process. He will try to intimidate squishy Republicans into doing his bidding. Obama will not nominate anyone close to moderate. He detests the U.S. Constitution, and he sees a clear path to re-writing it now.
We citizens must arise and make our voices heard to every Republican in the U.S. Senate to assure the first nominee is defeated. And then the second, and any others, as well.