All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
January 27, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm watching this World Economic Forum.
They got video of it now and then the cable networks.
And it looks like the bar scene from Star Wars.
I just sit here and laugh at it.
Talk about a bunch of people engaged in useless activity.
You want to have a World Economic Summit?
You convene the population of the United States someplace and ask them how they do it.
And that'll explain the world economy.
Greetings, folks.
It's Friday.
Let's hit the trail.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And you know the rules.
Open Line Friday is different from Thursday, Monday through Thursday because on those four days we talk only about what interests me.
But on Friday, you can talk about whatever you want when you call.
It's pretty much the way it goes.
You can ask questions.
You can make a comment.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, look, my email is overflowing here with reactions to Jill from Ithaca.
Russia should have said this or should have said that.
Thank you for telling her to shut up.
All these things.
Way to handle it with class.
I mean, I get the Boku comments.
But a lot of people, you should have told her about bin Laden.
It's what he said about Morgan Dushen in 1993 in the World Trade Center.
You should have encountered all this stuff and it happened in Clinton.
Folks, there is a cardinal rule that I, as host, employ.
And that is never, ever get into an argument with an idiot because others may not know the difference.
You get into an argument with an idiot and you both sound like idiots.
This is what's wrong with cable television these days.
And the minute, you know, I tried every number of ways of exploring that call and exploring Jill and trying to turn that call into something useful for you people in the audience.
But it became obvious to me that she was just hopeless.
The inclusion and more facts and so forth would have been pointless.
So, and then time ran out of the segment anyway, so that's what it was.
But never forget that.
It is a time-honored philosophy that I have never forgotten.
It is not wise to argue with an idiot because others may not be able to tell the difference once you get started.
And the mediocre are always going to throw stones at the brilliant.
And so you come to expect this kind of thing from people like that.
But the real value is, you know, I sit here and I talk about all these left-wing lunatics and these people out of the blogs that are telling you Democrats, she's the epitome.
She is the epitome of the Democrat base.
The value of that call is actually, you know, I can say it all day long, but since I'm not one of those people, all I can do is tell you they exist when they happen to call.
And, you know, the key is to get out of their way.
If somebody wants to be an idiot, get out of the way.
Don't argue with them.
Just get out of the way.
And that's what I tried to do, but she just, it was, well, you heard it.
But the value was, as I say, the illustration of just who these people happen to be.
Remember, yesterday got another game.
It must be the week for complaints.
This used to happen all the time.
First 10 years of the program, seemed like half of every show was made up of people calling, complaining and whining and moaning about the way I was talking or what I was saying, what I was doing.
That doesn't happen anymore.
Liberals have given up.
This week, this week, we've had two of them.
Yesterday we had this guy, Stan, in Las Vegas.
And he called up.
You know how when I imitate liberals, I said he used a soft voice.
Sometimes I lift my ethes like that and sound a little bit like Tom Dashell or Harry Reid.
And see, guys, calls up.
You are homophobe.
You are trying to make people.
Who's anything about imitating gays?
I'm trying to, I'm just imitating what I think the feminization of the American Democratic Party has made men in the Democratic Party sound like.
Particularly liberals, I pointed out if these guys, these Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Harry or Leahy and Kennedy, and these, if they weren't senators, these are such 60s and 70s retreads, they'd own bagel or coffee shops somewhere out in San Francisco.
It's homophobic.
And I, you know, the homophobia is all in your mind.
The prejudice is in your mind.
You hear something and it arouses some opinion in you.
That means the problem, the prejudice, is yours, not mine.
Well, imagine my surprise.
I'm doing show prep last night, and I come across a piece on a blog called Americandigest.org.
And I don't know who wrote this.
When I printed it out, it didn't print the name of the author.
Now, the column is about this little twerp that wrote the piece in the LA Times this week, the op-ed piece, saying that he doesn't support the troops.
And I got some emails.
Why didn't you talk about that?
Folks, why?
It's nonsensical.
It would be like spending a whole segment or two talking about Jill.
Or two whole segments of taking phone calls from Jills.
Why?
It's so absurd.
And I frankly, as a talk show host, I think it's too easy.
Of course, some idiot writes a piece saying he doesn't support the troops.
All he wants to do is get noticed.
So everybody gets all their dander up.
I can't believe that.
Well, we're going to get to the bottom of this.
And then I get this guy on the radio and stuff.
I just ignored it.
But these people, whoever it is of the American Digest, wrote a piece about this guy.
His name is Joel Stein, and he's supposedly a humorist.
And here's the headline of the piece: The voice of the neuter is heard throughout the land.
Like some haggard crack whore banging on the door of a dealer's den, willing to do anything, the hapless Joel Stein has been passed randomly about the blogosphere in the last couple of days.
Once a blog pile of such mountainous proportions starts, there's little left to comment on in terms of the content of Stein's small, dry excretion after the first five hours.
By that time, the whole quizzling screen has been pretty much picked apart like a biology major dissects an owl's pellet and glues the contents to a board with captions.
And it's time for the masters of the trade to go to work and perform live on the air.
And then they do the same thing what I was talking about, get all upset and outraged.
Who is this guy?
And he's just reveling in it the whole time with all the attention he's getting for this absurd, silly, stupid statement.
As the writer of this piece then goes on to say, what interests me, quote, he says the writer does, is how Joel Stein speaks.
If you focus on it, you realize that you hear this voice every day if you bounce around a bit in our larger cities buying this or ordering that and in general running into young people in the service sector, be it a coffee shop, a video store, department store, boutique, a bookstore, or office cube farm.
It's a kind of voice that was seldom heard anywhere, but now seems to be everywhere.
It's the voice of the neuter.
And I mean that in the grammatical sense, neither masculine nor feminine in gender, neither active nor passive.
It's intransitive.
In the biological sense, biology having undeveloped or imperfectly developed sexual organs, the neuter caste in social insects, botany having no pistols or stamens, asexual.
You hear this soft, inflected tone everywhere that young people below roughly 35 congregate.
As flat as the bottles of spring water they carry and affectless as algae, it tends to always trend toward a slight rising question at the end of even simple declarative sentence.
It has no timber to it, no edge of assertion in it.
The voice wisps across your ears as if the speaker is in a state of perpetual uncertainty with every utterance.
It's as if male or female, there's no foundation or soul within the speaker on which the voice can rest and rise.
As a result, it has a misty quality to it that denies it any unique character at all.
It's the valley girl variation of the voices that Prufrock hears.
Above all, it is a sexless voice.
Not, I hasten to add, a gay voice.
Not that at all.
It is neither that gentle nor that musical, nor is it that old shabby, lispering stereotype best consigned to the dustbin of popular culture.
No, this is a new, old voice of a generation of ostensible men and women who've been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any gender at all.
It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered.
And whoever wrote this great piece has come up with a name for them, the American castrati.
Now, this is not to say that the new American castrati of all genders live sexless lives.
On the contrary, if reports are to be credited, they seem to have a good deal of sex, most often without the burden of love or the threat of children.
And in this, they are condemned to the sex life of children.
It is only to say that this new voice that we hear throughout the land from so many of the young betokens a weaker and less certain brand of citizen than we have been used to in our history.
Who is he talking about here?
If I may just make a brief departure here, as though I'm a professor and ask for a comment from the cloud, who is he talking about here?
Moderates.
Moderates.
People aren't sure of themselves, but want to, they think, well, you know, Rush, I'm for that, but I wish we would do it smarter.
I wish we just wish we would be more sensitive in how we're going about prosecuting the war and terror.
I don't want to be mean to anybody.
They won't take a stand on anything until the majority is coalesced and then they get behind that, whatever it is.
And neither, that's right, conflict resolution graduates is who they are.
End up, they have no confidence.
They've got nothing firm or solid that they believe in.
And this is exactly what I am attempting to capture in my caricature of these people when I go into what Stan in Las Vegas accused me yesterday of a lispy gay voice.
If you can write in this tone, and of course this idiot in the LA Times can, you can become a third-level columnist for the L.A. Times.
With a little luck over time, you might even rise to the level of second-string columnist for Vanity Fair.
Should the country so lose its mind and elect another Clinton, you could even become a White House speechwriter.
For now, you can hear the poster child for this sexless cohort and Joel Stein's dulcet voice quavering and halting and rising to a falling, lilting question as Hugh Hewitt exposes the nothingness at Stein's core in question after question.
He was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and admitted he didn't even know what he's talking about.
He admitted essentially he had no clue what he was talking about.
He just doesn't like war.
He just doesn't like killing.
He doesn't like death.
And he thinks if it will help bring these people home safely, then he will say he doesn't support the troops.
What Stein has said is what his whole cohort has said in response to questions of honor, duty, country.
It's the standard issue answer, and it'll be their standard issue epitaph.
Whatever.
Whatever.
Back in just a moment.
Stay with us.
Here's Bill in Staten Island as we go back to the phones on Open Line Friday.
Welcome, Bill.
Nice to have you with us.
Nice to be here, Rush, and I want to say mega academic conservative dittos from the People's Republic of CUNY, the City University of New York.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Nice to have you here.
You are on fire this week, Rush, and you are so on point with these comments about Joel Stein and the neutering of the American citizen.
I do see this across the board in academia, students who make comments that end in interrogative inflections like this, and students that are uncertain about the positions that they want to take because they're afraid of offending anybody.
Yep, exactly.
And we are seeing this.
We are seeing this, I think, from the beginning of the education process.
This is something I think you were talking about earlier this week regarding the pathologization of boyhood.
Right.
Where being a boy is now being regarded as some kind of disease.
And the feminist agenda in this country has been to neuter males and to make them just turn them into what I call snags, sensitive new age geeks.
You're talking my language out there, Bill.
I'm telling you, Rush, I am the loneliest guy in my field.
I am a theater scholar working on a PhD in theater.
As a 42-year-old white, married, male, heterosexual, Roman Catholic, conservative, Republican, I am the most radicalized person in my field.
I bet.
I'm not surprised.
Well, you know, to me, it's sort of fascinating that this all comes together this week.
And I guarantee you, people, none of this was by grand design.
This program is not planned in advance.
It's totally based on events.
We don't do topics here.
And it just so happened that in this week, all of these news items happen to converge on a single theme, being what's being done to the educational system, the feminization of the Democratic Party, the whole concept here of my being criticized because of the way I imitate these people who the new American castrati.
That is such a great way to describe these.
They're sexless.
They're just neutered.
They come out of conflict resolution classes.
They're afraid to offend anybody.
And in the process, they don't know how many people they're actually offending.
And there's something else that comes along with this that the writer at Americandigest.org didn't mention, and that's this air of superiority.
They have this air of they're smarter than everybody else.
They think they're elites at the same time while they engage in all this wishy-washy, spineless type of conversation and behavior.
I appreciate the call, Bill.
Thanks much.
By the way, in the next segment, we're going to have the Secretary of the Army on the program, Dr. Francis Harvey.
There have been stories a couple days this week, one in the Washington Post, one in the Seattle Post Intelligence, have been all over the place about the Army is broken.
The Army is just broken, and deployments are nearly breaking the Army.
It can't do its job.
They're in a huge slump.
Secretary Rumsfeld went out the other day and refuted this.
And we'll have the Secretary of the Army on the program to discuss this whole thing for five or ten minutes, beginning with the next segment.
Meantime, Gary in Laguna Beach.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Why, hello, Rush.
Let's see, I was listening to your opening remarks this morning about a lady.
She's getting her husband to kill spiders.
Yeah, well, she said that she'd been married 10 years.
Her husband was a wimp when they got married, but she's bringing him along.
Now he's no longer a winch.
She's finally got him killing spiders.
Well, I'll tell you, let me just put in my comments about that.
Being a person that cares about birds, I've talked to you in the past about birds.
Look, I love birds too.
My all-time favorite bird is a pelican.
Exactly.
It's a brown pelican.
I remember you talking about that.
Exactly right.
Anyways, one of the connections I wanted to give you here, and I hope your audience takes this to heart as well.
Now, you like hummingbirds, don't you?
Of course.
In fact, I have even seen some.
Good.
Okay, you'll have to like spiders too, then.
The reason I say this is because when we look at a hummingbird's nest, guess what?
99% of it is spider's web.
That's right.
I'm an animal expert.
I know these things.
Right.
So if we wipe out the spiders, we're wiping out.
I don't think, I'm guessing here, but I don't think that this woman's running like a paramilitary operation and training and ordering her husband outside, okay, go kill the spiders, honey, so you can prove your manhood.
I think these are spiders that are maybe in their house.
Well, you know what?
Here's the thing I think.
And I don't think a hummingbird's going to get in there and steal the web from the inside of the house.
I mean, I'm sure it's happened someplace in the Caribbean.
Well, that's true.
But the thing I've done, whenever I see a spider inside the house, I have a tennis ball can.
And all you need to do is grab a tennis ball can.
And the spider, they love going inside things that are small.
And usually if you put a tennis can over a spider, they'll jump inside of it.
And then you take the little critter and you put them outside.
I mean, after all, it's all part of being tied into the environment.
Yeah.
Well, that's just keen.
And I can appreciate it.
But, you know, let me tell you something.
It's wonderful that you are oriented in the way you are.
We need people that have these concerns for spiders because most people don't.
Which is all part of the nature of photography.
Well, so are we part.
You know, that's what I was going to say.
We're part of nature, too.
And if the spider is unable to adapt to us, and then the hummingbird, you know, it can adapt or die.
I mean, if there's no spider webs, it's got to find something else.
It's like the spotted owl.
If it can't live in one of those old trees, it's got to find a red Kmart sign.
I know, that's a sad situation with a spotted owl.
Well, I know, but I don't think we're in any danger of wiping out spiders.
I don't think they're on an endangered species list or even protected, are they?
Well, there are some spiders that are.
Yes, there are.
Oh, really?
In the Pacific Northwest.
There are some spiders that have been.
What is it about the Pacific Northwest?
You know, it's amazing.
It seems like every animal that we're wiping out is in the land of the libs.
The spotted owl, the whatever, the spiders and so forth in the great Northwest.
Well, this has just been chocked full of information I didn't know, and I appreciate, Gary, you're getting through and telling us.
Secretary of the Army coming next.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
From saving spiders to the Secretary of the Army, we'd like to welcome to the program Dr. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army.
You were sworn in on November 19th, 2004.
What were you doing prior to that, Dr. Harvey?
Rush, I was in the private sector.
I was chairman of a couple of companies and on boards of several others.
I had a long career with Westinghouse and ended up as the chief operating officer.
And what was it that stood out for you among your work that the administration sought you out to be Secretary of the Army?
Well, I had a long, first of all, I fundamentally know how to lead, manage, and change large organizations.
Of course, as you know, the Pentagon is in a phase of transformation starting under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership.
But furthermore, if you look at my corporate career, I was involved for the most of that in the defense and aerospace industry, involved in approximately, from a contractor point of view, approximately 25 major programs.
So I have a great knowledge of defense and have a great deal of experience in, as I say, leading, managing, and changing large organizations.
Well, I have to say, I really am grateful, and a lot of us here are, for people like you, because you're in the snake pit now, as evidence, and you don't need it.
I mean, you really don't.
So I look at you as somebody who's willing to take all this on because you genuinely want to serve the country.
My primary motivation is to give back to the country what this great country has given to me at a successful business career.
And I want to serve the country, and this is my time to serve.
Well, we appreciate it, and I also appreciate your time in joining us because I need to ask you about this Pentagon contracted study.
I don't know what a Pentagon contracted study is, and you're in the Pentagon.
It said that the Iraq war risks breaking the U.S. Army.
And the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, had a briefing earlier this week saying, no, the force is not broken.
What is this all about?
It's hard for me not to think that this is political.
There are so many leaks that have come out of state, out of the Pentagon over the course of the six years of this administration.
I'm suspicious of this.
Well, I don't think this one was political.
It was a study contracted to get kind of an outside point of view.
And let me say that the conclusion that the Army's broke or the Army's stretched severely thin, we don't agree with.
Thank you very much for your point of view, but we don't agree with because today's Army, without a question, is the most capable, best trained, best equipped, best-led, and most experienced force this nation has filled in well over a decade.
So I can tell you that the Army is performing magnificently.
I think you see it in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think you see it in the response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
So I think the evidence shows otherwise.
Well, the report says that soldiers and brigades are being deployed more frequently and for longer periods than what the Army believes is appropriate in order to attract and retain recruits, basically.
It's puzzling to me that the Pentagon can ask for this report.
The report comes out, and then the people that asked for it said, no, this is wrong.
And it probably confuses a lot of people.
Well, I'm sorry it does confuse people, but the evidence says otherwise because last year we had the highest retention rate in the Army we had in five years.
And I think retention is the greatest indicator of morale and stress on the force and all these other statements.
And as I said, we retained 69,500, the highest in five years.
And I think if you think about that retention, it's a great indicator of a number of things.
First of all, it says the soldier is satisfied and has confidence in the leadership.
The soldier is satisfied that he has the equipment he needs to do his job.
The soldier is totally satisfied with the job he's doing and the difference he's making in defending the peace and freedom of this country, and that he likes his quality of life.
So all those factors are answered by the retention rate.
And if you want to get more detailed, you just look at the retention rate of the 3rd Infantry Division that's just rotating out of Iraq this month.
They beat their retention goal by 36%, and that goal was the highest that anybody can remember in their history.
And that was, by the way, their second deployment.
So, all the indicators in the general retention, and specifically with a unit that had been deployed twice now in Iraq, indicate that the Army is not broke, that the soldiers have high morale, and they're deriving a lot of satisfaction out of the difference they're making in the world.
And they're very, very proud of being the liberators of 50 million people and providing them with a democratic way of life.
The Associated Press is reporting that a retired Army officer wrote the report, Andrew Karpenovich.
That's correct.
Do you know him?
I do.
You do.
Well, he's concluded that the Army can't sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency.
And he cites as evidence the Army's 2005 recruiting slump, which they say missed the goal for the first time since 99.
And I've read just the opposite.
I've read that the recruiting goal not having been met is a trumped-up story, and it sounds like it is from what you just said.
Well, we were talking retention rush.
Now, by the way, I think that's correlating recruiting goals with stress on the force is not the proper correlation.
Our recruiting goals, in a sense, have nothing per se to do with the stress on the force.
It's retention, and as I said, retention is at a five-year high.
Now, addressing recruiting, we did miss our 70, excuse me, our 05 goal, but let me put that in perspective and tell you what we've done and what we're doing right now.
We had a goal last year of 73,400 in round numbers.
The 10-year average of our recruiting was 74,400, so we missed it by slightly less than 1,000, or approximately 1,000.
So, historically, we did not do bad against or our performance was not that out of line with past performances.
We are trying to grow the Army, so we have a goal of 80,000.
So, that is our challenge.
For the last seven months, we have made our monthly goals.
And the reason that is because in the early spring when we started missing goals, we developed and implemented a number of initiatives from increasing the number of recruiters to increasing the incentives to changing and enhancing our advertising campaigns.
So, we took a whole basket full of initiatives, and I think that has a positive effect.
And as I say, we're on track so far this year.
But make no mistake about it, it is challenging, but we are being, I think, very proactive about it, and so far, so good this year.
Well, I think to me, just as an average citizen, we've got essentially an all-volunteer army, and everybody that signs up for the Army these days knows pretty much the odds are pretty good they're going to go off somewhere into combat or into the theater of battle.
That's right.
I think it's profoundly positive, says something tremendous about when you look at the diversity of this country.
It strikes me how you can go to a city and you can find 19 and 20 and 21-year-olds partying like there's no worry about anything in the world.
In other parts of the country, in the same city, you can find same-age people who have a totally different outlook who want to join the military in these times at a time of war to defend and protect the country.
And I'm not criticizing either side.
I just think it's amazing.
No draft is required.
There's no conscription here.
I think this is something that the American people instinctively know and are very proud of the U.S. military.
I can say on my part, I'm very proud of our young soldiers and our young men and women to decide to serve.
Like I said at the beginning, you know, I'm giving back to this great country, and my opinion is that serving our nation is the greatest work of life.
And our young soldiers and the recruits that decide to do that have made the same decision.
And I can tell them, I tell all the young people out there that the Army is a great institution, a respected institution.
And if they join it, they're going to gain a skill.
They're going to improve their citizenship.
But mostly important, they're going to be part of the organization an organization that the nation relies on to preserve its peace and freedom and defend its democracy.
And that's what our soldiers are doing.
Did this report address specifically the Army or all branches?
It was really focused on the Army.
And quite frankly, Rush, the suggestions that were made in that, we're already doing.
Likewise, the suggestions in the Perry report that came out about a couple of days ago.
All those suggestions and recommendations, we have been taking action for at least the last one to two years on all the recommendations.
So we're moving out, and we have moved out, and we will continue to implement initiatives by which we preserve this all-volunteer force.
Because as you noted, the quality is high, and it's all volunteer, and it's doing the mission.
So we're doing everything we need to do, in my opinion, to preserve and sustain that all-volunteer force.
Very important for the country.
It's certainly not my Army.
It's not the Chief Staff's Army.
It's America's Army, and it's the nation's Army.
And it's very important that we sustain that high quality that we have, and that's through all-volunteer.
Well, Dr. Harvey, I appreciate your time because the people, because it's a volunteer force, because it's a time of war, because there are so many harping voices of a political nature saying that soldiers can't hack it.
They don't have what it takes.
When they read a report that says the Army's broken, it concerns them.
So I thank you for your time to come on and address that.
That's just the opposite the case.
I think, as I've said this afternoon, I appreciate being on your show.
And good afternoon.
We'll talk to you again.
That's it.
I'll be glad to come back anytime.
All right.
Well, we'll be glad to have you.
Dr. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army, back in just a moment.
Stay with us.
It's Open Line Friday, and you never know where the show is going to go on Friday.
That's the unpredictable nature.
We're waiting on the crocodile killer to call in next.
Here's Chuck in Colorado Springs.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, thank you so much for having me on.
I tell you, that was so inspiring to listen to the Secretary of the Army, and it just is indicative of the caliber and the quality of people that our president and great leader George Bush has picked to help us in this fight of terrorism around the nation.
And I think it's so significant that he mentioned that he had actually held a job and worked in the economy.
And I think that's so significant because so many people on the Democrat side of the debate have never held jobs.
Chuck Schumer is 56 years old.
He's never held a job a day in his life.
Ted Kennedy, we know, has never worked a day in his life.
John Kerry has never held a job a day in his life.
Well, now, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Kerry was a Vietnam veteran.
You may have forgotten that.
And he had a bagel shop in Boston.
And he also was a prosecutor.
When he was a prosecutor, they did it right.
They did it smart.
Well, I'd like to have a caveat about that because a prosecutor is the giveaway job for people that graduate from law school so that they don't have to go on welfare right away.
And I think anybody who has not been a lawyer enough worked as a prosecutor somehow missed it.
And he didn't have a bagel shop.
He tried to open up a replica of Mrs. Field's cookie shop, and he had to drop that because there's franchise infringement about that.
That's right.
That's right.
It was a cookie shop.
It was a bagel shop.
Shop, coffee shop, cookie shop, whatever, Boston, San Francisco, same place.
But I have to say, all these people that have actually held jobs, they would not be so supportive of their three key issues, which are treason, atheism, and sodomy.
Which are what?
Treason?
Atheism and sodomy, which are the only three issues that they stand on.
All right.
Look, Chuck, I appreciate the call, and I'm sure the Secretary of the Army, Dr. Henry, does as well.
I love your enthusiasm out there, pal.
I really do.
No, no, no, no.
Okay, Jenny, in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Whatever you, Winterbull, do not let the call on line one go.
The call I've wanted most all day has been up there for an hour and a half.
Do not let that lady go away.
Jenny, Jenny, in Fredericksburg, very hi, how are you?
I'm great.
How are you?
Couldn't be better.
Thank you.
I just wanted to call and let you know that I am a 29-year-old.
My husband is 27, and I see neuters all around me, but we are not of that ilk at all.
I know it's irritating, and it's pervasive out there.
The American castratia.
By the way, I couldn't find the name of the guy who wrote that piece that I read to you for the Americandigest.org.
And I finally have his name is Gerard Vanderloon or Vanderleen.
It's L-E-U-N, and I don't know how it's pronounced.
Vanderloon, Vanderlien, I'm not sure, but his name is Gerard Vandersomething.
And it really, it's a brilliant, brilliant piece, and it just captures the whole essence of this whole bunch of people who he's talking about.
American moderates, conflict resolution graduates.
Basically, they're sexless.
They don't want to offend anybody.
They're afraid to say anything they think might offend somebody.
When they talk, they always end up with a slight question mark sound at the end of what they say, and they have this air of superiority about them.
And it just grates.
Just a tinge of arrogance in the sense that they're more learned and they're more understanding and they're more sensitive and they're more informed and educated than the rest of us plebs.
And of course, you just want to smack these people upside the head and joel them back into reality.
Kelly and Moline, Illinois.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
Hi.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
I wanted to touch on just a couple of things before I get to my main point, if I could.
The one was that my husband just got back from San Antonio, Texas, as a guest of the Army.
He's a football coach here, and he attended several days of clinics and the U.S. Army All-American Bowl.
And he was totally impressed with the operations there and how his soldiers were treated and how he was treated and the whole Army philosophy and how much it resembled the football philosophy and team.
And he's a liberal.
So when he came back, I totally expected the opposite response from him.
So it was good to hear what.
Your husband's a liberal, and he went down and let Bobby Ross do a couple seminars for him?
Yep.
Did he come back a liberal?
Not as bad as he was.
Yeah, I'm going to say.
It's still not where I want him to be, but I'm working on it.
Well, send him out to kill some spiders.
That appears to be one of the approved ways of turning your husband into a real man.
Just make sure you do it with a tennis ball can so you can save the webs for the hummingbirds.
My second quick point was that the mentality of Jill is totally backwards to me.
Don't waste any time.
Look, we've got less than a minute to get to your point, which was James Fry.
So I'm going to have to ask you something.
Yes.
You've been holding for an hour and a half.
That's an investment.
Could I ask you to add another seven or eight minutes to that so I don't have to talk to you and address what you want to discuss?
Because I've got some audio I want to play with it, and I got another.
Okay, because she wants to address the fact that this author that Oprah finally flip-flopped on and is now stabbed in the back and thrown under the bus after trying to save him.
That this author's being crucified by the very media that itself makes up stories, writes things that are totally untrue, leaves out half of the facts of most stories.
But that's only that's what she wants to say.
But I want to take it a little bit further than that.
We'll do that.
We have time.
Stick with us, folks.
We're coming right back.
You know, Oprah can savage and crucify this James Fry guy all she wants, but it's about time somebody shine the light on Oprah for some of the lies and ongoing misrepresentations she keeps telling about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina down in New Orleans.
She doesn't have clean hands on any of this stuff when it comes to being honest and straightforward about a story.
▲
Export Selection