RUSH: One thing we haven\u2019t learned yet, folks, is whether or not the New York Times will conduct an investigation into whether or not Jeanine Pirro\u2019s children are adopted, and if they are adopted, how they were adopted. This is, of course, just part of the “standard background check” that Supreme Court nominees, we are told by the New York Times, just part of the background check that nominees must undergo. Speaking of it, the American Spectator today says that it was “opposition research” generated by NARAL, this abortion rights gang. “Their opposition research distributed to Democratic operatives working against Judge John Roberts that spurred these operatives to encourage reporters in Washington to look into the Roberts adoption process.” So we have here opposition research that was generated by a leftist special interest rag group talking to reporters, who then urged other reporters to look into the adoption of John Roberts\u2019 two kids.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2005\/08\/prejudiced__bigoted_feminazis_work_against_roberts__08_09_05_.Par_.0002.ImageFile.jpg\")
It seems like we\u2019ve established a link here — even though we\u2019ve always known it\u2019s existed. You know, the rap is that all the conservative media responds to RNC-faxed talking points or messages from Rove or whatever, and we go out and we act in unison, when in fact that does not happen. The way it does happen is that somebody with a fax machine in the Democratic Party sends out talking points and the whole mainstream media echoes them and sounds identical!<\/p>\n
It doesn\u2019t matter what mainstream media newscast or newspaper you read; you read or hear the same thing. Now we learn that the opposition researchers at NARAL were able to get reporters at the New York Times looking into this abortion business — and that\u2019s what it\u2019s about, folks; make no mistake — via this adoption angle. “A Democratic lobbyist who is part of the Roberts fight speaking on condition of anonymity to the American Spectator, said they, NARAL, and other anti-Roberts groups, ‘went into this with a laundry list of things, and the idea that, given what was at stake, nothing was out of bounds.\u2019 That\u2019s why you saw that ridiculous Roberts-is-gay thing spinning through the blogosphere, and why you had serious reporters looking at the adoption issue. Another Democratic operative said that NARAL officials ‘hit on the adoption issue because some of these NARAL and really aggressive pro-choice groups see political motivations behind everything. They see people who adopt children, beyond the desire for children, having an ideological predisposition against choice issues. It isn\u2019t just about kids. It\u2019s about politics.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Democratic lobbyist says that the ‘very fact of the adoption issue reached so far as the New York Times shows how desperate Roberts\u2019 opponents have become. ‘There\u2019s a lot of Roberts writing but there isn\u2019t anything much to hang our head on. He\u2019s clean, and it\u2019s frustrating our ability to paint him anything other than what the White House put forward: a smart, sharp and fair legal mind.'” Can I take you back, folks, to the early 90s — late 80s, in fact, it might have been, the early days of this program — and I made the point to you that one of the things that I didn\u2019t understand although I do now but one of the things I was having trouble comprehending about pro-choice groups back then was that they got mad when an abortion didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n
They literally got mad. I said, “This ought to illustrate to you just what this issue is to them. As many abortions as possible must happen.” I\u2019m talking about the activists. I\u2019m talking about the leaders. These are the original feminazis, folks, if you want me to go back in time and define the term for you: every abortion possible must happen; every abortion that can happen that doesn\u2019t happen is a set back for the cause — and it became crystal clear to me one day when I had a story in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, about a Planned Parenthood abortion center that was just down the street from an adoption center. Some people from the adoption center parked themselves outside a Planned Parenthood office and tried to talk the women going in there into coming down and having the baby and giving it up for adoption, and the abortion people just went nuts! They had a cow. The Planned Parenthood people, the NARAL people, they just went nuts, and I\u2019m saying, “What is wrong with this? What\u2019s wrong with having the baby and putting it up for adoption if you don\u2019t want it?” Well, here we go. This is exactly what this whole business with Judge Roberts is all about.<\/p>\n
The fact that anything that could have happened to prevent an abortion did happen, and if you\u2019ve seen some of the NARAL ads and some of the issues they\u2019re having — what did they do recently? They had a big powwow somewhere, and they are making fun of abstinence or something. I forget the title of it. A lot of people on the left, a lot of mainstream Democrats got a little frightened by it because it was too up front, it was too. It was too “here\u2019s who we really are,” and so when you read here that “some of these NARAL and really aggressive pro-choice groups see political motivations behind everything, they see people who adopt children as having an ideological predisposition against choice,” and whenever you see “choice” in this, just read “abortion.”<\/p>\n
“It isn\u2019t just about kids; it\u2019s about politics,” and so what they were hoping to do here was find out the record of his adoption or focus the attention on that with the intent being to illustrate the guy is “virulently anti-choice.” This is a one-note samba group. It\u2019s a single-issue group but make no mistake. The best way to sum them up is: any abortion that doesn\u2019t happen is a setback to their cause. It is so patently obvious in this. This is pure paranoia. It was also going around — and I mentioned this on Friday when we had Fred Thompson on, who\u2019s the liaison. Yeah, it was the “screw abstinence rally,” the screw abstinence rally. Now, most mainstream pro-choice groups — NARAL is not one — but most of these mainstream groups at least give lip service to the notion that there are other viable options here and we just can\u2019t take away abortion, but this NARAL bunch? I\u2019m telling you, the more abortions that happen the better, they think. The more mainstream it becomes, the safer it is, the better it is for their cause and issue, and it\u2019s just amazing how the Democratic Party has just stuck like glue to these people and does their bidding. It\u2019s tough for some people to understand just how this is so political and what does it tie into, what other issue? Is it about freedom? What is it about?<\/p>\n
And there\u2019s really no way to explain this rationally because NARAL is not rational, and these zealous pro-abort groups are not rational. They\u2019re just angry. They are miserable and they are unhappy, and they are desperately trying to find a way to be relevant, I suppose, but regardless: it is not mainstream. NARAL is not mainstream; they don\u2019t represent even near a majority or even a plurality of American thinking, but they do have these activists on their side, and activist journalists such as the New York Times because this court is what it\u2019s all about to them. The court is their legislature. The court is where laws are made. The court is where laws are torn apart, ripped to shreds, and where they are created. So we\u2019ll wait patiently, and we\u2019ll wait just to see if the New York Times does an investigation here into whether or not Jeanine Pirro\u2019s children were adopted so that they can make her out to be a hypocrite when she claims to also be pro-choice.<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: David in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Let\u2019s grab a couple phone calls. I\u2019m going to do something after that I seldom do. Welcome, sir, to the program.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2005\/08\/prejudiced__bigoted_feminazis_work_against_roberts__08_09_05_.Par_.0007.ImageFile.jpg\")
CALLER: Rush, you\u2019re – [seminar caller oath] actually dittos. I\u2019ve been a listener since August of \u201988, since the lost moving truck days. I\u2019m as conservative as they get [end oath] but you\u2019re dead wrong on this. It may have to do with politics as to why the Times is going after him, but it really has nothing to do with politics. It\u2019s — What you see here is you see upstanding, affluent couple get perfect white babies when everybody else half the wait. The reason the story is going to get buried and it\u2019s never going to go anywhere is because liberals do it, too. This is the dirty secret in our country that nobody talks about, and it has nothing to do with his privacy, the privacy of the children or the children\u2019s parents. In fact, what was going on was that he did something shady or he did something wrong. I mean, Rush, look at it this way.<\/p>\n
Does anybody who makes $250,000 a year give up their perfect white baby for adoption? No, they don\u2019t. [sic] It\u2019s poor girls. It\u2019s girls who aren\u2019t — they don\u2019t have a lot of money, and if by chance they\u2019re taking advantage of by people such as Judge Roberts in the situation, I mean Judge Roberts could bury somebody like this if they ever came back. That\u2019s why the records are immediately sealed. I mean… That\u2019s why this is a story, that\u2019s why it\u2019s going to get squashed. Nobody is ever going to go after this.<\/p>\n
RUSH: It\u2019s not a story. It\u2019s just a rumor. Look at all it took here. It is a rumor. I did not even say — I have never once said — it was fact. I\u2019ve said, “One of the things floating around out there is that the Times wanted to look into this because a bunch of people have been complaining that he was able to get a couple of pure white little babies from Latin America,” and here you come, David. It\u2019s stunning to me that this kind of thinking exists out there. You have just indicted Judge Roberts, and you don\u2019t have the slightest bit of knowledge about his case. You have just called this program and you have said almost with certitude, ontological certitude, that the reason his adoption files are sealed is because he went and put the screws to some poor kid, some poor mother down there, and if she ever comes forward and announces how she had the screws put to her by Judge Roberts, that he\u2019ll bury her. So, folks, it proves it worked. This is the kind of stuff floating around out there, and this is the kind of stuff that if you it to a New York Times reporter they\u2019ll go, “Oh, really?” and they\u2019ll conduct and begin an investigation into it, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, just supposition, just presumption, and now we know “it\u2019s a dirty little secret; everybody does it, Democrats, Republicans, everybody.<\/p>\n
Nobody wants little babies of color. All they want is little white babies, and of course $250,000 couples don\u2019t give up their little white babies for adoption.” It\u2019s only poor little people of color. There\u2019s so much prejudice and bigotry in this comment; I don\u2019t know where to start separating it, but I appreciate your calling, David, and establishing this. This is a classic illustration of how this program works. Put it out there, and I know when you heard me say it last Friday, “Oh, Rush, come on, you know this…” There are people who believe it now. There are people who believe it, and obviously there are people out there who are trying to get other reporters interested in it, and if Democrats and Republicans both do it, I want to see the Times look into a Democrat\u2019s adoption records on the same basis and I will bet you that it never happens from this day forward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: One thing we haven\u2019t learned yet, folks, is whether or not the New York Times will conduct an investigation into whether or not Jeanine Pirro\u2019s children are adopted, and if they are adopted, how they were adopted. This is, of course, just part of the “standard background check” that Supreme Court nominees, we are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n