| It's Winston Churchill's Great-Grandson! |
|
| July 24, 2006 |
|
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
|
 |
|
RUSH: Jonathan in Macon, Georgia, welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How you doing?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
 CALLER: Rush, I just literally want to say that I'm a great fan of yours and I wanted to talk to you about the point you made about Winston Churchill who is actually my great-grandfather, but he thinks --
RUSH: Wait, wait, whoa, whoa. I am talking to Winston Churchill's great-grandson?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Wow. Wow, that's cool!
CALLER: Thank you very much.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: Rush, what I wanted to do, I actually come to America, giving lectures about my great-grandfather, and I didn't realize how bent the press are toward the Democratic Party and that it's not really sort of a fair press as we got pretty much in the UK.
RUSH: Wait a second. Hold it. Hold it, Jonathan. Wait just a second.
CALLER: Yeah?
RUSH: I read the UK press, and there's nothing fair about it. You've got the Guardian. You've got as many leftists over there, if not more, than we do.
CALLER: Yeah, I know, but there are certain parts, there are certain papers, that actually are bent in a way more conservative than socialist, and you've got things like that. You've got the London Times.
RUSH: Are you talking about major papers that are bent toward -- like the London Times, a major paper, as opposed to there aren't major papers here that are bent that way? |
|
|
CALLER: Right. No, no, I'm talking about major papers in London that are bent toward that type of thing.
RUSH: Okay. Well, then, all right, I understand.
CALLER: You've got terrible papers here like the New York Times. I mean, that is just disgraceful what they did, revealing that information. You know, you've got some really bad newspapers here, and but for your show and but for other shows and other internet feeds like NewsMax and things. I don't think you'd actually... There wouldn't be any fair press, but what I want you to respond to is Buckley's comment about the legacy that George Bush is going to leave his successor. In my opinion, George Bush has acted more like Churchill than previous presidents before him, purely and simply because at the time when Bush was threatened, when 9/11 happened, he acted immediately. It was, "We're going to go to war. We're going to fight the war on terrorism. We're going to actually solve this problem," and it's the same thing that Churchill wanted to do in the thirties but everybody was so hung up on the appeasement idea.
Chamberlain wanted this. He didn't want to go to the war, and Hitler was promising all the way through. "We'll do this if you promise not to go to war with us. We won't invade Czechoslovakia. We won't do this; we don't do that," et cetera, et cetera, and all of England was falling for this, and saying, "Okay, fine. Yep. No problem. We'll do it." Well, Churchill, who didn't really give a damn about diplomacy, just wanted to get the job done, said, "Look, Hitler is doing this." George Bush has done exactly the same thing, which Clinton should have done. He stood up, he said, look, these are terrorists, these are problems. These people are going to build up and cause us big problems. If they haven't got weapons of mass destruction now, they will do at some stage. We need to do something about them now. So I think the legacy that George Bush is going to leave his successor is one of great strength in America, maybe not financially because wars cost money, but certainly a great strength because you guys won't take any more. |
|
|
 RUSH: Well, it's heartening to hear. That was one of the disturbing things that Mr. Buckley said, that George W. Bush doesn't have a legacy. Certainly when it comes to foreign policy, it is that we won't take it. That's why so many people are fearful of the next administration not being of the same timbre, tenor, and resolve. And of course that's the way it is in America. Anywhere you have Democratic elections that's the way it is. So that's why some people get concerned in this country about the will of the people. What was the will of the British people back when your grandfather was doing his best to alert them to the danger?
CALLER: Well, the people -- funny enough -- the consensus was people were pretty much behind idea but it was the government that didn't want to do it and the government wasn't feeding the correct information. They were holding back the important documents saying, "Look, Germany is re-arming here, and Germany is re-arming there," and it was being kept back by people like Neville Chamberlain and Stan Baldwin because they didn't want to face the issue -- and so they were holding this information back, and it was but for people who approached my great-grandfather and said to him, "Look, Winston, this is what's happening, these are the actual facts and figures," and then Churchill would stand up in parliament and say, "Look, this is what the government is suppressing." Slowly but surely people started to turn around, the general public started to turn around and accept this war may well happen, but still he was unpopular, still he remained unpopular within his own party, and George Bush has done exactly the same. President Bush is not a diplomat. He's never wanted to be a diplomat. He just wants to get the job done. He wants to protect Americans. He loves America. He is an American, and he wants to protect them. Unlike the British Prime Minister Tony Blair who wants to win every election possible, okay, George Bush gives a damn about America, and if anybody says that he doesn't, they're wrong. I may not have met George Bush, but I can certainly hear from his speeches, I certainly see from his actions, the man is honest, and the man is decent, and he's doing a good job.
RUSH: Jonathan, thanks very much for the call. Your sense of timing is impeccable, by the way. I've only got about 20 seconds left in the segment, which is enough time to reintroduce you to people who might have tuned in the middle of your comments. This is Jonathan. Is your last name Churchill?
CALLER: No. It's Sandys.
RUSH: It's not. What is it?
CALLER: It's Jonathan Sandys.
RUSH: Okay, well, regardless, he's Jonathan Sandys, and Winston Churchill's great-grandson. He's in Macon, Georgia, and we thank you for the call. |
|
|
| END TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
|
Churchill Would Fight Tyranny of Terrorism Jonathan Sandys
Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2001 Jonathan Sandys is the Great-grandson of Sir Winston Churchill and the British political correspondent to NewsMax.com. What is our policy? ... to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. – Winston Churchill, Hansard, May 13, 1940 Were Churchill alive today, his policy and advice then would, I believe, be the same as now. We as free democratic nations cannot afford to let ourselves be taken over by 'The Boneless Wonder.' War is inevitable; there is no backing away from our duty. There is no cowering behind the attitude of a conscientious objector. Either we fight to survive or we accept defeat and prepare for a fate worse than death where our right to choose will be taken from us. Where innocent men, women and children will be murdered for the pleasure of sport. Were Churchill alive today, I believe he would have done as Prime Minister Blair has done, standing Britain shoulder to shoulder with America. Send troops in preparation of war. Visit the president and plan firstly to exhaust the 'jaw-jaw' solution, but should that fail, be prepared for 'war-war.' Sir Winston would no doubt have taken the view that although "No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it." Terrorism is a serious problem, and although the enemy is unseen, masking himself behind a veil of religious fanaticism, we have no alternative but to fight. No one wants to have a war; many feel that it is a useless solution. I have heard some people say, "World War II was different. We knew our enemy and we could see to fight them. These people are prepared to die for their cause; they care nothing for either their lives or the lives of those they murder." I agree. I think there are not many people in the world who have not considered the above statement, but to those I must ask, what alternative is there? Do we as democratic nations just sit and take everything we are given? Do we as democratic people turn our backs on the freedom our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents fought for in the two world wars – our democracy, our freedom to vote, our freedom to live where we want? Our freedom to exist was bought by those who fought, some of whom gave their lives in 1914 – 1918 and 1939 – 1945. We have to defend ourselves against the tyrannical power of terrorism that threatens us. We have to fight. What is our aim? … Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. – Winston Churchill, Hansard, May 13, 1940 Some in Britain (a small minority) are saying that this is an American war and why should we be drawn in? I remind that minority, without the support and help of America during The Second World War, we would have lost our struggle. Hitler would have taken the 'Island Nation' he wanted and this country – indeed, this world would have become a very different place. Our American friends need us. We need them as well. Although Britain has not felt the anger of bin Laden and his motley gang or murderers, we are not unaccustomed to terrorism. For 30 years we have been fighting a war of our own against the evils of the IRA. If we don't join with America now in its struggle against terrorism and it loses, the IRA bombings will seem like a picnic to what bin Laden and his evil-minded fanatics will do to us. The coming months will no doubt put a strain on all our lives. We must all focus on the aim of our cause, the aim of victory. We must put our faith in God. For some, we will have to take up the sword and fight for the good of mankind. This solution, although a last resort, may last for some years to come. We have to be strong. We fight not just for ourselves, we fight also for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. "In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill." Churchill would have been proud to stand with us all and fight. He once said in a letter written in 1937: "Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry." Perhaps the most compelling evidence that we have of Sir Winston Churchill's possible response to this attack can be found in a radio broadcast he gave in February 1941. "Here is the answer I will give to President Roosevelt. ... Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Over these next coming days, weeks and months, let us be resolved to stand against those who would take the democracy that we have from us. Let us not be complacent. We must not take democracy for granted. We as a Free World are at war against a foe that, unlike Hitler, is not mad but desperate. When the bully is standing alone, there we will be. A bully is only a bully as long as he has people around him who agree with him. Should we weaken a link in the chain of terrorism, then the whole structure of terroristic violence will fall. Though odds may appear against us, we can win. We must fight. We must win. |
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
