All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 1, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
August 1, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, thrill seekers.
It's great to have you with us.
The one and only Rush Limbaugh program, the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the one and only Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Special day today.
This is our 17th anniversary of broadcast excellence.
Another way of saying it is that today starts our 18th year.
August 1st, 1988.
Great to have you with us.
Coming up in this hour, I got a call about the Bill Frist flip-flop, I guess, on the stem cell research.
Some thoughts on the implosion of the AFL-CIO.
Predicted this would happen one shape or another, one shape or form for years.
And also the latest on the John Roberts nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Since it is our anniversary, we're going to go back in time.
I said earlier we weren't going to do this.
We had a caller who said, I remember where I was the first day I was listening to you, and you were doing something with a condom on a microphone called Safe Talk.
I said, well, may as well demo it.
Better to demo it than talk about it.
So I asked any of the staff if anybody had a condom, and they didn't.
And the first time, we actually did this a number of times early on.
Kiki De La Garza had one condom in her purse, one of the original broadcast engineers, and it split during, it broke, ripped during our first demo.
So the first call screener, Snerdley's cousin Mario, Mario Snerdley, was dispatched to go out and get some condoms.
He came back with three and they were lubricated, and that wasn't going to work.
You can't put lubricated condom on a golden microphone.
So this time, Snerdley went out.
He got a box of 12 of them here.
And he came back and he said, it's amazing.
You don't have to ask for, you don't have to ask for these things anymore.
They're right out there in the open, which is what we thought that he might encounter.
But he wisely did not get lubricated, thought ahead.
Didn't even have to tell you, don't get lubricated.
And you actually did it right.
So congratulations.
Now, what is this?
Well, you got to understand this, that you need the context.
And back in the late 80s and early 90s, there were two issues that were intersecting.
One was the AIDS hysteria.
The other was abortion.
And condoms are being urged for both activities.
And condoms are being called safe sex.
And I still, to this day, think that equivocating condom use with safe sex is silly when there's something far better called abstinence.
That works every time it's tried.
Same thing with the spread of STDs.
And I always feared that if we're going to give condoms, remember, we're giving condoms away in schools and so forth.
We're giving them away all over the place.
Condom art became a big thing.
Well, we're just promoting the activity here.
We're giving people a lie.
We're saying, use this.
You'll be safe.
And we're just encouraging the risky behavior and the risky activity.
But saying it wasn't enough.
I wanted to demo it.
I wanted to demo how I didn't believe that condoms are safe anything.
So what I did when Kiki gave me her condom, and I have one here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
It's a Trojan.
Did you choose that brand on purpose, Mr. Sturdly?
It was just the bright...
Oh, it was the only non-lubricated brand of the bunch.
Okay.
It comes in a bright red pack, as those of you watching on the DittoCam can see.
In just a moment, we will also do Safe Ditto Cam.
But here, let me have just ripped it open, and here we go.
All right, let's see.
I got enough slack.
Here we go, folks.
Oh, got to do it again.
It ripped.
Proving once again that this whole business of one of these things being safe is actually risky in itself.
Let me give it a little bit more slack so I don't have to stretch it quite as much.
Not trying to cover the whole microphone here, folks.
Just a little bit of it to...
Okay.
Okay.
Ah, hang it ripped just a sec.
It's not, we're still quitting.
We're not safe yet.
I've only got 10 more to go.
Brian, you have to be really careful because that lens on the Ditto Cam is pretty big.
You have to be very, very, very careful when you come in and do this.
All right, here we go.
Try one more time.
I think I could just.
Okay, there we are.
Now, my friends, you are listening to this program in Safe Talk.
And those of you on the Ditto Cam can see, let me zoom in here so you get a good idea.
There you have it.
The condom is on the microphone, and you are listening to Safe Talk.
And what this means to you is that if I say anything offensive, you won't hear it because this condom is going to protect you.
If I say anything obscene, if I were to curse, you wouldn't hear it.
Because this condom is going to protect you and it's going to make sure that all talk is safe.
All right, Brian, time to come on in here.
And I'm sure that Brian has never had experience with a condom.
I'll take it out of the pack for him.
All right.
Now, just you see how this is on the microphone there.
All right.
Just go over there and just, you know, you're not going to be able to get it.
Just on the whole camera, just on the lens there.
And we'll, you people listening are not going to be able to see this, but this is simply for the ditto cameras out there.
Oh, it's looking close.
And ah, it broke and you were so close.
He's trying to.
No, you can't put a faulty condom on and demonstrate safe anything, Brian.
You just, you just can't do it.
It didn't break.
It was okay.
Oh, it didn't break.
It just snapped.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
So, so he's.
Dawn chimes in.
A likely story it didn't break.
The female perspective on all this.
Glad you're here, Dawn, because we would have missed that.
So those of you watching now on the Ditto Cam at RussiaLimbaught.com are now watching Safe Ditto Cam.
Anything I do here, I could flash you an obscene gesture.
I could strip naked and you wouldn't see it because Safe Ditto Cam is in operation because the condom is there protecting you.
It is a great illustration on the Ditto Cam.
Now, for those of you that are not subscribers and are not watching this, we'll get you a still shot of this on the homepage of the website this afternoon when we update to reflect the contents of today's program.
So there you have it.
Safe Talk and Safe Ditto Cam done to demonstrate for you just how easily this can work.
Because as you know, folks, if I were to utter an obscenity, you wouldn't hear it because that condom is protecting you and protecting.
Okay, now I'm going to take it off.
I'm going to take the condom off of the golden EIB microphone.
Well, it doesn't sound right.
It doesn't sound right.
It has the condom is working.
It is.
It's better with the condom off, Mr. Well, no, the demonstration is over.
Yes, of course it's better with the condom off.
The whole thing here is in fact, you know what I'm saying?
How about Club Gitmo condoms?
Club Gitmo condoms.
You think Trojan would make us some prison jumpsuit orange condoms that say Club Gitmom?
I bet they would.
Club Gitmo condoms.
And really add to the safe experience you can have at Club Gitmo.
All right.
for when they throw a female interrogator in your space.
Make sure you have your club gitmo condom to be safe.
It's stuck.
Well, no, it's stuck.
It's not moving over there, Mr. Snurdley.
This is also instructing.
And there we go.
Sounded painful to Mr. Snerdley.
I hope it didn't bother too many of the rest of you.
Be back after this and continue.
Stay with us.
Serving humanity, executing assigned host studios flawlessly, zero mistakes on the Rush Limbaugh program.
If we do club gitmo condoms, I have the perfect sales line.
The perfect sales line.
With a club ghetto condom, you're going to get mo.
I've also heard, ladies and gentlemen, that certain liberal talk show hosts have to wear a condom on their entire head in order to deliver safe talk.
Standard-sized condom seems to fit them well.
Brian, go ahead, come here and take the condom off of the ditto cam so that getting some complaints out there.
We've demonstrated it now.
Now, you've got to be careful when you take that thing off of there because you cannot adjust the camera position when you do it.
You've got to be very – no, no, no.
Yeah, do it that way.
There we go.
And we're back, ladies and gentlemen.
As you can see, we're now back to dangerous ditto cam and dangerous talk.
Dennis in Punta Gorda, Florida.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
I wanted to ask a question and get some of your thoughts.
Senator Bill Frist, flip-flop on the stem cell issues.
You know, one of the things that got President Bush elected was the pro-life vote.
And all of a sudden, this guy may have intentions of running for president next time around.
And he does a flip-flop on the stem cells.
And there's been so much success with the adult stem cells research and very little, if nothing, on the embryotic stem cells.
And I'd just like to get your thoughts on what you, you know, how you feel that, you know, this guy is supposed to be helping the president.
Well, first off, one of the things that I noted, and this is something I had to get up speed on yesterday because I did not hear of this last week when I was gone.
So I had to get up speed on it yesterday.
And in doing so, I discovered the typical media frenzy on this.
There was just a, oh, wow, look at this.
Frist is going against Bush.
There was all kinds of excitement out there on the part of people in the press.
And then saw some stories where the White House seemed blindsided by this.
They had no idea Frist was going to do this.
And that led to people complaining that the White House doesn't have still a good enough liaison operation with people up on Capitol Hill.
There's no way the White House should have been blindsided by this.
The way I want to tackle this, one of the most interesting things that I read was Rich Galen's piece.
He's got a little blog called Mullings.
And he presents an entirely different side of this.
He says that Frist is not flip-flopped, essentially, from his long-held position on the issue.
And I want to run this one by you, Dennis, because I have a feeling this was not covered very well last week, nor based on what I was able to gather, there wasn't a whole lot of focus on what Frist's long-term position was.
So here's what Galen writes about.
He says, the popular press fully engaged this weekend in the Ren and Stimpy dance of joy over the news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had broken with the president over the issue of stem cell research.
To listen to the newsreaders on cable or to read the headlines of the weekend papers, you would have thought that this was a new position for Frist and that President Bush has been opposed to stem cell research.
Now, I have to tell you, that part of it is true.
The press and people have portrayed Bush as being opposed to stem cell research.
And the fact is he's the only president who has authorized federal funding for it.
Bill Clinton didn't do it.
No other president has done it.
And that is true, folks.
The coverage of this from the first days of this controversy, not the Frist controversy, but the first days of this issue's controversy, Bush is wrong on this.
Bush hasn't done anything.
Bush is opposed to it.
Bush is the only guy that's actually authorized it.
On Fox yesterday morning, former Congressman Tom Downey was wringing his hands over the plight of those with diseases and conditions which might be helped by breakthroughs in stem cell research.
Galen reminded Downey that his hero, Bill Clinton, had never asked for the first dime for stem cell research, and that I didn't remember his proclaiming his solidarity with the world's Alzheimer's victims during that research blackout.
And there was a research blackout in the 90s during the Clinton administration.
Galen then writes, when I got home, I got an email from a viewer, quite possibly the only viewer who took exception.
He says, R.E., your comments about Bill Clinton not supporting stem cell research during your interview on Fox News today.
Stem cells had not yet become a major factor in medicine during Clinton's reign.
Your comment is like saying George Washington did not promote antibiotics.
To which Galen responded, that's crap.
President Bush announced his decision in August of 2001, six months after he took office.
And as you will remember, there were months of conjecture about what his decision would be.
Are you suggesting the whole issue of stem cell research was born, bloomed, and was decided upon in the few months between the end of Clinton's reign in January and June?
Well, to his credit, the correspondent actually did the research and sent a longish reply.
And the shorthand of his reply is this.
The Bioethics Council concluded that the federal government should fund research and the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, provided that only embryos left over from fertility treatments were used.
That was September 1999, two years before President Bush's decision to fund stem cell research on existing stem cell lines.
Not only that, but the Congress passed a bill saying no NIH, no National Institute of Health funds, can be used for any research involving the destruction of a human embryo, a prohibition which the father of stem cell research, Bill Clinton, signed into law.
Father of stem cell research is sarcastic here.
He didn't do diddly squat on it.
So the fact of the matter is that Bush did face the stem cell issue head-on.
Clinton never did.
There was a research blockade, if you will, or boycott.
No money was allowed to be used, and Clinton signed that into law.
So the first thing you have to know about this is that were it not for George W. Bush, there wouldn't be any stem cell research, period.
Now, Dr. Frist, Galen went to his Senate website, and sure enough, Frist's statement on stem cell research was posted there.
He refers to a floor statement, Senate floor statement on this issue, which he made four years ago.
And on the website specifically points to number five, which read, provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded.
So four years ago, Bill Frist was for this.
Four years, Bill Frist apparently has not flip-flopped.
Bill Frist has always been for embryonic stem cell research, but only from discarded blastocysts.
So this is hardly a new position for Frist.
Not only that, but the first point in his proposal, Frist's, is this.
Ban embryo creation for research.
Well, that's what the debate's all about.
The people that want embryonic stem cell research want to be able to create embryos so they can destroy them so they can do the research.
The dirty little secret here, folks, if I may be so bold, is that the advocates of stem cell research are on the same side of the page as the pro-abortion crowd.
Stem cell research is not, and I'm going to tell you this flat out, for these people, stem cell research is not about stem cell research.
It's about making sure that abortion keeps happening.
Because if you can get people to go along with destroying perfectly fine embryos, the only way you can do that is to abort a fetus, by the way, then you can prolong abortion.
The left knows it's losing when it comes to the moral and ethical questions involving abortion.
They're losing ground.
They're losing public support on this.
And that's why the Supreme Court nomination is so crucial to them, or all of them will be.
And so stem cell research has taken over as the lead item while the hidden agenda is pro-abortion.
It's just that simple.
And so when they say Frist has flip-flopped, what they're trying to say is, see, even Bill Frist understands how important stem cell research is.
So important that you got to go out there, and it doesn't matter where you get the embryo.
It's more important because we can always create another embryo anywhere, but we can't save lives until we do this research.
Well, that's not what Frist said.
So the answer to the question is, typically, you can't rely on a media frenzy for your truth in this because Frist's position is what it's always been.
He is for these blastocysts that are discarded for reasons other than abortion.
He is not for abortion.
He is not for procreation of embryonic stem cells, if you will.
And you cannot rule out, folks, I'm telling you, the left in this abortion business, when I tell you that that's the sacrament to their religion of liberalism, you've got to understand it's their communion.
It's everything.
And you cannot touch it and nobody's going to stop it.
And whatever they can find to legitimize it.
And what better way to come off with a stem cell research business oriented towards saving lives as their means of actually promoting abortion.
Make no mistake, that's what this is about.
Making complex understandable.
Now, I'm not through with the Frist business here because I'm not totally exonerating him.
I think he made some politically boneheaded moves like calling the New York Times first before calling the White House and cluing them in as to what he was going to do.
I mean, that's kind of curious.
But remember now, for four years, Frist has had a statement on his website, it's four years old, that he believes in providing funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded.
And his first point in his proposal, that's number five I just read to you, number one, the first point is ban embryo creation for research.
And embryo creation is exactly what the stem cell research people are all about.
It's all about abortion, folks.
Believe me, and I'll demonstrate this even better in just a second.
Now, in his statement last week, Frist pointed out that when President Bush announced his policy following or allowing for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, it was widely believed that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for federal funding.
That's proven not to be the case.
Today, only 22 lines are eligible.
More over those lines, unexpectedly, after several generations, are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought.
This is a frist in his statement last week.
So funding was originally for 78.
Only 22 lines are eligible.
So his statement was, well, let's at least get up to the 78 that the president authorized.
So here, in one sense, the position of President Bush and Senator Frist is much more, well, the distance between those positions is much narrower than the distance between the position of Bush and that of President Clinton.
Clinton didn't do a thing on this.
And trying to structure this as a Frist flip-flop is typical of the left and typical of the media because they were so excited as to what it could mean for them.
My problem with this, to get to that, which is what the question was, but I wanted to set the table with the accurate information before giving you my thoughts on this.
I haven't heard Frist propose anything to limit embryonic stem cell research.
And the research is being done.
If it's being done, why federally fund it?
Why do we need the federal government involved in this?
Why does the federal government, when you get the federal government involved in this, folks, you are tampering with the Declaration of Independence, life, we're all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When you get the federal government involved in this, it's a risky, risky thing, in my opinion.
And I think, you know, to illustrate to you the hypocrisy of the left on this, and please, I'm going to say this again.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it's crucial.
And I think that as many of you as possible understand this, this whole push by the left for stem cell research is nothing more than a dodge.
It's a distraction for what they really want to push, and that is abortion.
If abortion can be made to be something that saves lives at the other end of the life spectrum, then they figure they'll get more support for it because they're losing support morally and ethically every day for the whole cause.
And I'm talking about the abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, anytime, any day, crowd, to whom it's the ultimate definition of freedom, the ultimate definition of their ideology and so forth.
But it's really all about preserving abortion.
And if you doubt that, ask yourself this question.
The left wants all this research.
They want all this research into stem cells for all these reasons.
Whatever they say is going to cure paralysis or it's going to cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, whatever they say it's going to cure.
And nobody is saying that.
Nobody can guarantee that.
Nobody can even give you a probability of it.
And yet they've succeeded in getting that notion out there.
And it's, if you ask me, it is mean and it is thoughtless.
Just as when John Edwards, during the campaign in a debate with Vice President Cheney, said that if we'd had stem cell research, that Christopher Reeve would be walking today.
Well, the fact of the matter is we've got stem cell research and we had it because of George W. Bush.
They've tried to make it out like Bush is against it and has denied it.
And that's not the case.
Bush has funded it.
Clinton did not.
And yet the left wants all this research and they want the government to do it.
But look what they do to people in the private sector who try to do research to come up with drugs and other mechanisms to improve and prolong life.
Specifically the pharmaceutical companies.
They try to destroy those companies, do they not?
They try to reduce the length of their patents.
They try to make it less profitable so that it cuts into the research and development budgets.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that these people that are promoting stem cell research come from the same camp that attacks pharmaceutical companies who are already making great strides in improving human life.
So it's these people, if they were actually interested in prolonging human life and coming up with cures for all these diseases, they'd be for all the research that is necessary for this.
They wouldn't just be focusing on stem cells.
And they ignore umbilical cord cells.
They ignore adult.
It's got to be embryonic.
It can only be embryonic because it's only embryonic that has the necessary.
Well, nobody said this.
Nobody knows this yet.
It may be borne out with research.
Who knows?
But we're not there yet.
And for the people out there to say only that research is okay and permissible, and only when the federal government does it is it permissible and good.
But when Merck does it, we're going to put them out of business.
We're going to have class action suits against Merck and whoever else, Johnson and Johnson, whoever we have to take out, we're going to take out because we hate big corporate interests.
We want the federal government in charge of all this.
Because when the federal government's in charge of all this, guess what?
It gets institutionalized.
The libs can't control the private sector.
The libs can't dictate to the private sector unless they get the right kind of judges on the right kind of courts to make the right kind of laws that will limit the private sector.
And this infuriates me, folks.
This whole business infuriates me.
This is nothing more than a smokescreen and a shell game.
It's dishonest, and it is creating a false hope in a whole bunch of families out there that stem cell research holds the cures for their family members' diseases, and George Bush is standing in the way.
And that is not the case.
And I don't know what Frist's motivation for this was.
I haven't talked to him about it, but I suspect that there are some people who are getting fed up with the notion that the very people who are responsible for the stem cell research that's going on out there are being said to be the enemies of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Frist is upset that he's being considered an enemy of this and is going to be targeted for it, just like Bush is said to be an enemy of it, when in fact it's Bush and his administration, the only administration that has funded and made legal this kind of stem cell, embryonic stem cell research on a limited number of lines.
So you can draw your own conclusions on this, but I think it's patently obvious.
I think we've got typical liberal Democrat politics at play in this, disguised as something to help people.
All of liberalism is disguised to help people, be it welfare, be it AFDC, whatever their programs are, they are disguised as something to help people.
They don't.
All they do is sustain a rotten situation and circumstance.
We don't get any stories about the failure of the Great Society of the War on Poverty.
All we get are stories on how big-hearted the people who were responsible for these programs are.
Well, we don't hear about the destruction of the black family that was brought about by the war on poverty of the Great Society because the federal government replaced the father in the black community.
The father wasn't necessary as a breadwinner or anything else because the federal government was right there paying women X amount for every kid that they had.
And I'm not the source for this.
Enraged African Americans are the source for this.
They're the ones who will tell you.
Because it's been, in many cases, their families that have been devastated and torn apart by all this.
Welfare reform came along and other things, and these things are now being reformed.
We're not paying X number of dollars for every child born.
That's out the window now.
And a number of other reforms have taken place.
So, in order to sustain the left's utopian, perverted, utopian view of things, now stem cell research has become the holy grail.
That's the carrot dangling in front of everybody's eyes.
If we just get this done, we're going to cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and paralysis and so forth.
And it may, but there is zero, zero evidence born of research that that is going to happen.
We're nowhere near it.
In the meantime, in order to continue the research, what do you need?
You need embryos.
And where do you get those?
Well, until the left figures out how to replace God, you only get embryos from procreation.
And then you have to go in and abort the result of the procreation to get the embryo.
Abort!
Abort.
You have to abort.
And Frist is not for that and has never said that he's for that.
And he's been misrepresented by those who want you to believe he's flip-flopped and has joined the left on this position.
I think I got back to the country in a nick of time on this.
We'll be right back, folks.
Stay with us.
And we are back, El Rushbow, here on our 17th anniversary, starting our 18th year today, August 1st, on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, still using talent on loan from God.
Marquette, Wisconsin.
Hello, Steve.
Welcome to the program.
You're next.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
How are you today?
Fine, thank you.
I was wondering if you felt that Mrs. Reagan's support of stem cell research was a hidden agenda to support abortion.
No.
Well, she's not a liberal Democrat either.
In fact, I believe that a majority of the House and Senate, which is Republican controlled, passed this stem cell research bill.
So, I mean, who is really against it?
Well, you know, you're mixing a couple of things here.
The fact that a bunch of people voted for it, why is everybody still acting like we don't have it?
Why is everybody still acting like it's being denied?
Why is everybody still acting like the reason is because they were only giving 70-some-odd lines.
They want it unlimited, and they want the federal government paying for it in an unlimited way precisely because of what I told you.
It's a smokescreen.
They're trying to make abortion moral is what they're trying to do.
They're trying to establish the morality of abortion by promoting this.
Now, Nancy Reagan, my answer to you on this, sir, is I'm not in lockstep with anybody.
Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean that I say everything they all say.
I'm not like a Democrat.
The Democrats are the ones in lockstep.
The Democrats are the ones that don't divert from each other.
Just because Nancy Reagan's for it is not going to change my mind about it.
She has a whole different perspective on this, and I don't know her at all.
And I can't testify to what her motivations are.
I can only assume.
And it's very dangerous when one starts assuming.
But all I can tell you is that there is no research that would have helped her husband overcome his Alzheimer's.
It would not have happened.
There's none even on the horizon.
It's just somebody's guess, somebody's theoretical scientific guess that it might happen.
Now, a lot of Republicans voted for this because the president wanted it done.
The president asked for the spending to fund the limited research on these limited number of lines, but that wasn't good enough for everybody.
So now we portray Bush and everybody is opposed to it.
So I'm talking, in one sense, trying to correct this misnomer that Bush is opposed to this.
If it weren't for Bush, you wouldn't have any of it going on.
As to people who are for it, Nancy Reagan is not a left-wing activist, and she's not out there beating up George Bush, and she's not out there doing what the left is doing in order to advance this, and she's not making it a cause above and beyond what it is.
She's not participating in any kind of a sham.
I don't know her, but I'm sure that she's being upfront and honest about what she thinks is important about this.
People can disagree on it.
You can disagree with me.
I'm just telling you what I think as I watch this take place.
I'm just appalled that so many people apparently have fallen for this.
We just have countless abortions to save lives.
It's such a great gimmick.
And it's a little bit disheartening to me that this has worked on so many people.
But the reason it does is because a lot of families have a personal connection to this and would do anything to help a family member.
And if they think it's harmless, as they've been led to believe, and if they think nothing's going to happen, if there's no harm whatsoever to this embryo because the embryo is useless anyway, blah, you can't blame them for being hoodwinked on it.
But hoodwinked is what they've become.
Tim in Columbus.
And by the way, the proof of this, John Edwards out there, this was just, this was catastrophic what he said.
It was outrageous that if Al Gord been president or if John Kerry's president, whatever, that Christopher Reeve will be walking soon or would have been walking.
That is absurd, but that is typical of the kind of sales technique that has been used on this ever since this issue got legs, so to speak.
Tim in Columbus, glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I know you're short on time, so I'll get to it.
You know, not to call into question Frist's entire motivations, but if this is seen as like an opening salvo to his 08 bit for the Republican nomination, don't you think he's just shot himself in the foot?
I mean, nobody on the Republican Party is going to get the conservative nod if they aren't ardently pro-life.
Giuliani's not going to get it.
McCain's not going to get it.
And Frisk, with this, he's not going to get it either.
Well, yes, I think that the base is inflexible on this, and I don't blame them.
I'm just saying in Frist's case, I think a lot of people may be misunderstanding where he's coming from on it.
The only problem I have with Senator Frist on this, by the way, he's been consistent.
I just read to you the statement from his website from four years ago, and he is not for the creation of embryos for this purpose, which means he's not for abortion.
My big problem with this is the whole notion of federal funding for this in the first place.
And he did come out for that.
And that's, you know, I just, nothing that I've seen, nothing that I know about this is going to make that palatable to me.
I don't think if the federal government, because of our Declaration of Independence, other founding documents, is not going to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who will?
And so I think the federal government getting involved in the destruction of life to save life is a risky road.
And anybody who wants federal funding for that is walking or driving down that road.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mike, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Megan Dodoz from Charlotte, North Carolina.
And happy anniversary.
Thank you.
Just let you know what kept us alive there in Iraq while we were there.
Mom would take the broadcast and send it to us.
And just appreciate the truth being put out there by so many people today that don't do it.
When were you in Iraq?
About four year, and we just got back about a week ago.
Oh, really?
Well, welcome back.
I appreciate it.
Welcome back.
I can imagine how frustrating it is to be over there and see and be treated to the news as it relates to how you all are doing over there.
It's got to be frustrating.
I appreciate your comment very much.
Thank you.
Keep up the good work.
We'll do so.
By the way, all of you in the U.S. military, be you listening on our podcasts or Armed Forces Radio or whatever, or those of you here domestically, you know, it's been a real source of pride, all of us here, for all of these 17 years to count ourselves as among your biggest supporters.
And it's been a thrill and an opportunity to be able to voice that support consistently over these 17 years.
And that will always be the case for as long as there is an EIB network.
Folks, thanks for being with us today.
It's great to be back.
And I'm in the saddle again.
We'll be back tomorrow, do it all over again, and make sense out of whatever happens between now and then.
▲
Export Selection