Pete, Pete Pete Buddha, Joseph Mayor Pete Joseph Buddha discussed on Rush Limbaugh


Pete Pete Buddha. Judge the mayor of south bend, Indiana. His dad was a full fledged Marxist was Marxist. Professor. Who spoke fondly of the communist manifesto? And dedicated a large part of his academic career to the work of Antonio grim. Ski. The Italian communist party founder and also an associate of v I Lenin. Joseph mayor Pete Joseph Buddha, judge died just this past January aged seventy one emigrated to the United States in nineteen seventies from Malta. And Malta happened to be where one of the professors who ran the scam on George popadopoulos was from. Anyway in nineteen eighty. Joseph buddha. Judge joined the university of Notre Dame faculty where he taught modern European literature and literary theory. Which was a cover for teaching Marxism? He supported an updated version of Marxism. That gets rid of some of Marx and Engels most doctrinaire theories, but he was proudly and unapologetically Marxist. Well, this brings us to mayor Pete and has a story here at PJ media by the writer Jim Trotter. Who writes, I was baffled last week by Pete Buddha? Judges definition of freedom, which was elegantly stated what I told you that guy is articulate. His definition of freedom was eloquently stated it was a rousing Lee received. And it was a thousand percent incorrect. You see to mayor Pete? And this is by the way, this is a great. I think this applies to pretty much every leftist out there. To mayor Pete any adversity in life that you face makes you less free. Anything in your way, any obstacle in your way makes you less free. And by obstacle. I mean, we're we're gonna talk adversity is being down thirty points in the fourth quarter or. At a football game or or having a tough professor in college. We're not talking about people denying your rights. We're just talking about competitive adversity and see the route here is competitive in mayor Pete's world. There can't be freedom. If there's competition. Because in competition. There are winners and losers, and that's not fair. We can't have losers. We can't have the stigma of loser that can destroy a person it can really give them self esteem problems. So anything. That constitutes a competitive obstacle. Competitive adversity in his world is a centrally a denial of freedom. So to mayor Pete being free means the government taking care of you and getting rid of this are these adversities these obstacles. And treat her rights when he heard mayor Pete define freedom says sounded exactly like a damn communist. And. Peach world. Everything that you would read about him as homophobic because he's gay and you're not allowed to criticize it just like Obama. You couldn't criticize Obama because he was black or half black and therefore any criticism was logged in as racism Bama had a free pass. And that's what they want with women. And that's what they want with the first Hispanic, and you're not gonna be able to criticize the first woman because it's going to be sexist or misogynist. And you're not going to be able to criticize the first Hispanic because that's going to be whatever it is. And so if somebody if we ever do elect a gay president, you're not going to be allowed to criticize him because that's going to be homophobia. You're not allowed to criticize him. And if you do then you are guilty of incurring mayor Pete's freedom. His definition of freedom is the opposite of the one that our founding fathers used and he grew up learning about a very different group of dead, white guys. He grew up learning about ground ski and Marx and Engels. He didn't grow up learning about Madison Jefferson, Washington. Some people call mayor Pete the white Obama. But that's not actually true. But I'm not going to the actual definition here. Just make sure that you understand that to the left. Any criticism your stomping on their freedom any adversity. They face is an affront to their freedom. That's why they don't wanna hear any dissenting points of view. That's why they don't care to debate. That's not they're not interested in being in the arena of ideas, and even prevailing because all of that. That's that explains. The snowflake mentality. A conservative spokesman being brought in to make a speech on a college campus is an assault on their freedom. And they genuinely scared they're gonna lose their freedom. If conservatism is anywhere near you. Disagree with is an obstacle. It's adversarial, and it's interrupting their freedom. And this is how they think. And it is one of the best ways that I could think of to help you understand what seems to us. Completely irrational. That heavy people disagree with you somehow stomps on your freedom or that having an obstacle facing adversity is. Tantamount to losing your freedom. But if if they look at freedom and equality and government see is there to get rid of all the ad versity government is there to make sure there, isn't any pain. There isn't any racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, or any of this. And of course, that's impossible government can't stamp that stuff out because people are people that are going to be who they are. No matter what. But they're not gonna stop trying to grant government that kind of power to shut up people that they don't want to deal with because it is. Eight denial of freedom for them. And when mayor Pete was going through this south by south that got one of the biggest rounds of applause. Is definition of freedom is nobody disagreeing with you. Nobody having the power to put an obstacle in your way. No adversity in life net is not real folks, you know, most most obstacles in life. I I believe her self-imposed, not all, but I think most of the hardship in life a lot of it is self imposed most of the obstacles most of the challenges that we face a self imposed. You have to overcome yourself you have to overcome your own limitations. But to them. All of that all of that is bad. That's mean, it's unfair. And it not happening. Beanie adversary anything and they did know adversity period. And there shouldn't ever be. Any obstacles that's not a free society? When obstacles in the way, what you stop and think how irrational that is. But I'm telling you that audience at south by south west was swallowing that stuff up faster than mayor Pete could produce it. Okay now to James Comey James Comey was on CNN and hour ago sat down there for an interview with Christiane Amanpour. And he was being queried about the Muller report. What ought to happen to it? What it says what it means and all of that? And as you listened to his answers to her putting gone tests. You will undoubtedly see how pretty much everything I've warned about an predicted here. Has become manifestly obvious with his answers. First question. Director comey. What is your perspective? Do you have confidence that enough of Lee Malo report will come out to satisfy everybody who wants to see it? So this question is so former director Comey, do you think they're still hiding things they were going to see the dirt because we all know there's dirt in aerial know that Trump is corrupt. Are we going this theater and everybody who wants to see it will they be satisfied? Those are reasonable concerns for Democrats to have Bill bar attorney general it deserves the benefit of the doubt la- give him a chance to show us. What he feels like he can't show us. I have to imagine that former director Muller wrote the report with an eye towards it being public someday. So I can't imagine a lot needs to be cut out of it. But let's wait and see the attorney general deserves that chance. Yes. Of course, he deserves a chance until we figure out his with Trump and then after that all of his chances expire. And of course, my good, buddy. Bob Muller wrote the. Report with an eye toward it being public hell's bells? He did you are damn straight. That's why it's not gonna be pretty. Thank can't imagine that a lot needs to be cut out of the league. We could see pretty much pretty much next question from Christiane Amanpour many, including the president of called this for a long time. A witch hunt a hoax. To those of his supporters who might say, look it amounted to a beans. This never should have happened. What is your answer to that? Take a look in the mirror and ask what happened to Bob Muller in the FBI being corrupt and evil and a nest of deep state traders that they reached a conclusion that the president is happy with just don't move on from that your president tried to burn down the department of Justice, but second you should have fired all of us if we didn't investigate what we learned in the summer of two thousand sixteen when we got smoke not fire but smoke that Americans might have assisted the Russian effort. We had to investigate that. And no serious person could think otherwise man, FOX to unpack this. This has got so much of the BS it. First off take a look in the mirror. What happened to Bob modern the FBI being corrupted? So he's saying here, all you people thought Muller had all this. Get Trump aspect and all these anti Trump pro Hillary people there how in the world could we got a report that gives report that no collusion happened. Well, that's not just what we got. We got a report with an inclusion on obstruction. We got a report that is now said to have all kinds of things in it that Trump doesn't want to be seen. This has been so well crafted and done on the part of these there never was any evidence of collusion. And this business of. Your president tried to burn down the department of Justice for second. You have fired all of us that we didn't investigate what we learned in the summer of two thousand sixteen this is so full of it. He has still maintaining that the FBI was minding its own business one day, and then a Trump foreign policy guy. George popadopoulos happened. Atelli ambassador from Australia that the Russians had thirty thousand emails they still maintain their trying to maintain that. That's when this investigation began, and they've got a bunch of fact checkers have backed them up on this. That is no way. True. They're trying to dossier had nothing to do with this commes way of saying the dossier. The dossier was all they had that was it. Nothing more ever. There was never any evidence of collusion. They were trying to implant spies in the Trump campaign. Stephan helper was one of them tried to get hired as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Thankfully, didn't get hired that was a stroke of luck. But this investigation began even before the summer of two thousand sixteen but there is still so argument about it. Which is why all of this stuff needs to be declassified. We need to find out exactly who decided to do what? When. There are some people that make the case that this project actually began in two thousand fifteen the project to keep Trump away as far away from possible at of the Oval Office in Washington DC by denying him the nomination and then screwing around with a transition and then trying to mess with his presidency as well. But this idea that they were sitting around one day and all of a sudden news came in that the Russians were colluding. What is this the hacking of the DNC server is that what he's talking about? We don't even know to this day that the DNC server was hacked. They never let the FBI examine it. We don't know that it was hacked. We don't know that it was an inside job, but rush but Russia Podesta the pedestrian emails were because he got hacked via hitting hack. It was a phishing attack. Whatever happened. The DNC server is not why Podesta's emails ended up being public. This is just. That answer. There is so loaded, and I'll tell you virtually everybody in the Washington establishment, most of the drive by media believe this version of things that the investigation began in July when popadopoulos told the Australian investigator that the Russians thirty thousand eight meal. How did popadopoulos no at the FBI hired people to tell him. I've take a break. We'll do it..

Coming up next