All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
February 2, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
John Boehner has just been elected by the Republicans in the House of Representatives as their majority leader, replacing Tom DeLay.
His opposed by Roy Blunt from Missouri, who was the acting majority leader, and John Shattig from Arizona, one of the 94 freshmen, I think, came in with, was part of the Newt Revolution.
Actually, Boehner was too.
Boehner was very much involved in the contract with America.
Boehner also was on the other end of the phone call, the cell phone call that Newt was having with Boehner that was overheard and recorded by the grandmother and grandfather pair.
What was their name?
The Martins.
Yeah, the Martins.
They're driving along in their Cadillac, and they just happened to have a cell phone frequency receiver in there.
And just happened to have a recorder, like we all do in our cars, to record other people's cell phone calls.
And they gave that conversation to Big Dad Bad Jim McDermott, who gave it to the New York Times.
They published that was a conversation with John Boehner that Newt was having.
Anyway, greetings and welcome.
It's the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program, and we are coming to you today in Living Color on the Ditto Cam.
It's up and running at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
Pressure is being brought to bear from those in the Detroit area who have heard my pledge today on WJR this morning to no longer use the term that I actually coined for Auburn Hills anyway, because that's where the incident between the Pistons and the Indiana Pacers took place when there was an insurgent breakdown.
Fans started belting players.
Players said to hell with you fans.
A brawl broke out in the stands and so forth.
And shortly after, very successful battle we'd had in a city in Iraq.
I didn't know this, but some people started a blog named after the term that we had coined for Auburn Hills.
And now they're all upset that they've got to find a new name for their blog.
And they're asking me to come up with a new nickname.
And the first thought that hit my head is after Sunday night, hopefully, we'll be able to at least refer to Detroit as the Steel City West.
But we're still working on appropriate nicknames.
All right.
To the remaining items in our news digest today, people who have this from Olympia, Washington, people who have sex with animals should face felony convictions for animal cruelty, says a Republican senator pushing for a ban on bestiality.
Senator Pam Roach, a Republican from Auburn, is sponsoring the bill, which was prompted by a widely publicized Washington state case in which a man died of injuries suffered while having sex with a horse.
The measure was aired Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Washington is one of 14 states where bestiality is not explicitly banned, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Our laws are lacking in this area, said Pam Roach.
People are coming from out of state to do this here.
We don't need to have a mecca here for people abusing animals.
The issue made headlines in July when a Seattle man died after suffering a perforated colon while having sex with a horse at a farm in rural King County.
Authorities, for those of you in Rio Linda, a colon is, I want them to understand what happened here.
A colon is the large intestine, but I'm afraid that might not help.
It's the innards.
That's a good way to put it, Mr. Sterling.
Yeah, for those of you in Rio Linda, perforated innards.
Authorities said that Kenneth Pinyon was pronounced dead soon after companions dropped him off at the hospital.
Prosecutors are unable to charge anyone with animal cruelty because there is no such law unless they can prove the horse didn't like it or was injured.
And of course, it was the exact opposite.
Offenders might also be restricted from owning animals and could be placed into counseling.
These animals don't have the cognitive ability to consent, and that is the case, then we have to be protecting them, said Pam Roach.
Well, now, would somebody explain something to me?
This is really now, I hate to express my naivete about these kinds of things, but well, no, I don't actually.
I'm very proud to be naive about these kinds of things.
But how do they know the horse didn't consent?
How in the world can this happen without consent?
We're talking, we're just talking about a human being and a horse.
If the horse didn't consent, then none of this would have happened.
If the horse didn't consent, then the guy would have been sent packing long before he packing was sent.
I mean, I'm going to stop asking questions, but you can see where I'm going with this.
I mean, you just don't walk up to a horse and a horse has to get ready.
A horse has to.
I'm just going to ask: how does she know that there was no consent?
This is the left coast.
Studies have shown a strong link between sex with animals and pedophilia, King County Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Satterberg said.
Quest for animal protection has made for curious partnerships.
It's bringing together Roach, a rural conservative, and animal rights groups around the state.
Well, we're going to keep following this, folks.
This story that just will not go away.
This, I love this next story.
You know, Frank Gaffney, big friend of the program here, big defense expert.
This is a story in the Chicago Tribune today.
Jack Bauer, the fictional counterterrorism agent on the Fox Show 24, hasn't actually waded into the debate on civil liberties versus terrorism surveillance as Congress considers making changes in the USA Patriot Act.
But during the most recent episode of the White Knuckle TV Drama 24, viewers in Washington, the nation's capital, saw a message drawing on the show's themes that was intended to influence real-life political debate in a highly unusual way.
During a commercial break, while Bauer was desperately searching for canisters of deadly nerve gas that had fallen into the hands of terrorists, viewers saw an advertisement questioning the wisdom of senators who would weaken the Patriot Act.
What if they're wrong? The commercial said.
It marked a blurring of Hollywood fantasy with political reality that represented a sharp departure, even in the no-holds-barred world of political campaign adverts.
Liberals, to sum this up for you, the liberals are mad that a pro-Patriot Act ad ran during 24, and they're saying that a line has been crossed.
The ad, which may air again during future 24 episodes, is an unusual example of an interest group so closely meshing political persuasion.
What the hell?
This is nothing.
How about this Gina Davis show with a female president?
Let's be honest.
What is the purpose of that?
Is that not to pave the way for the dour Hillary Clinton?
And might we also point out that show is in the ratings tank.
It is in a tank so bad that they have taken that show on hiatus.
And guess what else is over with?
The West Wing.
What the hell was that?
The West Wing was nothing more than a fictional TV show where liberals could pretend they ran the country.
Martin Sheen, to them, was the real president.
On whatever night that show runs, and then whenever the other show on with Gina Davis, she was president that night.
And the Republicans always took it on the chin.
And the Republicans were always the wackos.
I mean, here's Hollywood producing two television shows to advance.
There are many more than that.
Just two television shows to advance their own ideological ideas.
And everybody praised it.
Emmy Scavar.
Even more nominations.
It was the stars of both shows were heralded as breaking new ground.
Blah, Made us all want to puke.
So here Gaffney's group comes up and runs up PSA on ad in 24, and the libs are going nuts.
Unfair.
You can't do that.
What's the difference in this and the network news?
You want to talk about blending fact and fiction?
We'll be back in just a moment.
Okay, we're back, El Rushbo here on the EIB network.
This story, if it's not up yet, it soon will be, at National Review Online, it's by Byron York.
Here's the headline: Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the Plame case.
Was any damage done by the Valerie Wilson leak?
Fitzgerald said, I don't know.
The subhead is, the CIA leak prosecutor refuses to turn over evidence to Scooter Libby.
Watchers of the CIA leak investigation are buzzing over a series of letters between prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and lawyers for former Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis Libby.
In the letters contained in motions filed recently by Libby's defense team and released by the court, Fitzgerald steadfastly refused to reveal whether he has any evidence that Bush administration officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or any other law by revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leak investigation, but Fitzgerald has so far not alleged that anyone acted illegally by revealing Wilson's ID.
In the letters, which give outsiders a glimpse of the intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on in the case, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to turn over evidence that might point towards such an underlying crime.
Fitzgerald refused.
In a December 14th, 2005 letter to Fitzgerald, Libby's lawyers asked for any assessment done of the damage, if any, caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee.
In the same letter, Libby's team asked for all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee or any aspect of that status was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 203.
Those dates marked the period in which some Bush administration officials discussed Valerie Wilson with reporters.
The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, declined both requests.
A formal assessment's not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document, he wrote in a January 9th, 2006 response.
In any event, Fitzgerald argued we would not view an assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure as irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false.
So far, there's been little attention paid to Fitzgerald's statements of the possibility of underlying crimes in the CIA leak case.
Instead, much attention is focused on a paragraph at the end of Fitzgerald's January 23rd letter in which he wrote that, quote, we have learned that not all email of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system.
That statement's fueled much speculation on left-wing blogs that some sort of cover-up's taken place and that the White House has destroyed evidence in a leak investigation in all the documents made public so far.
However, Fitzgerald has not suggested that that's happened.
And Byron's right about that.
That is the big news today that some archiving of emails during that date range was not preserved at the White House.
The real interesting note here is that lawyers for Libya have asked for evidence and there isn't any.
Fitzgerald's not turning any over.
And it goes to the heart of it.
Was there any crime committed here?
And this is just the beginning of this.
Mark my words.
The journalists involved in this are all going to get subpoenaed up there.
And if this actually goes to trial, and it's going to get very interesting.
L.A. Times today.
Bush health plan called smart politics.
Critics see it as a gimmick.
When President Bush's critics would charge that the administration's health care policy, emphasized tax-advantaged health savings accounts, was tilted in favor of the rich, supporters had an easy answer.
They would point to a costly White House proposal to provide poor families with tax credits toward the purchase of medical insurance.
Now that response is no longer available.
After making no progress winning congressional approval for the 10-year $74 billion credit, administration officials have quietly revamped the measure in ways that would sharply reduce its costs and thereby offset the price tag.
So basically, health savings accounts, you know, everybody says we want lower health care costs, more available.
And anybody with any degree of understanding has to understand that the only way that health care costs are going to begin to even have a chance to be brought into line is with market-induced reforms.
It's the only way, and that's what the health savings accounts have always been about.
And people who have them love them.
They work.
They're tremendous.
And Ted Kennedy is out there calling it a gimmick like his Social Security privatization fiasco.
President Bush's health savings accounts are a gimmick that'll only make a bad situation worse.
The idea is that by coupling a bare bones, high-deductible insurance policy with an account into which people can deposit money tax-free and withdraw it for medical purposes, individuals have a greater financial stake in getting reasonably priced care.
So Ted Kennedy and the Lyft, and this doesn't surprise me at all, simply say that the free market is a gimmick.
And I'm telling you, that's the truth.
That's how they look at it.
The free market is a gimmick.
These people, folks, do not look at capitalism as fair.
They see it as inherently unfair.
And it results in people having unequal outcomes.
And that's unfair.
It predetermines winners of life's lottery and so forth, like Senator Kennedy.
And so it just can't be trusted.
We have to have socialism with everybody having as little as everybody else has, that at least we'll be equally miserable.
The free market is a gimmick.
Here's Mary in Sunnyvale, California.
Hi, Mary.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's a real honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
Mr. Limbaugh, I'm calling to thank you.
I'm a stay-at-home mom, and I'm in a pretty liberal section of California.
Yes, you are.
Well, I can kind of get dragged down by the stuff I read in the newspaper, and it's kind of a barrage of negativity.
And I listen to you every day, especially while I'm doing my errands in the morning, and it keeps me positive.
Keeps me upbeat about what's really going on.
I always switch on the program and just check again to make sure that we're going in the right direction.
I'm glad that you listen, and I'm glad that it has that effect on you, because it's intended to have that effect.
Well, it really helps with the, you know, sometimes I get this sense of isolation that not many people share my values or the choices I'm making.
And when I listen to that, I get my perspective back, and I remember that there are a lot of people doing this, and a lot of people share these values and really care about the country.
Are you a California native?
Yes, I am.
From Sunnyvale from Bay Area?
Well, I initially lived most of my life in Southern California, and then I moved to the Bay Area when I got married.
Yeah, marriage will do it to you every time.
Well, it's worth it.
Just kidding.
I love this easy stereotypical humor.
Well, look, if you need the daily dose, I urge you to keep taking it.
But the fact of the matter is that it is different.
I mean, San Francisco, the whole Bay Area is a different ball of wax.
For example, it's a place where the health care plan for city employees allows them to use taxpayer dollars for sex change operations.
Now, if the people of San Francisco want to elect people that are going to make that possible for the population, then that's fine.
I mean, that's what local politics is all about.
I understand the feeling that you can have of being on the outs out there, and you're not wrong.
You are in terms of numbers.
But that, you know, you're not giving up.
Oh, no, definitely not.
And you're not having doubts.
No, you know, sometimes I do feel a little bit lost in the wilderness, but then I keep listening to you.
Well, where's your husband?
Does your husband share your values?
Absolutely.
In fact, he kind of, he's the one who got me more involved in the whole political scene.
And, you know, and he's at work, so I listen to you during the day, and then sometimes I call him up and say, Rush said this really cool thing.
You've got to listen to Rush.
So it makes a topic of conversation for us.
Well, I am honored to be included much of your day as the program is.
And if you just keep doing that, are you a subscriber to my website?
I am.
Oh.
I am.
And we've been having a good time with the podcasts.
Good.
Wow.
I mean, you're getting all kinds of.
Are you a fan of 24?
Yes, I am, although I don't have as much time for that because that would be reading things at the computer, and I have a couple little rugrats that keep me pretty busy.
Well, you know what?
How about an autographed copy of season four from Kiefer Sutherland?
Oh, I would love that.
I got one left here in the lower drawer here.
Hang on.
We'll figure out a way to get it to you.
Don't go away.
All right.
We'll take a brief time out and be right back.
Stay with us.
Mr. Sterdling just says, are you going to play Jack Murtha on Hardball List?
I've got the Mirtha soundbites here.
I just, what's the point?
I mean, I...
I guess we could.
What numbers are the numbers are Mirtha?
We got three, seven, eight, nine, ten.
Yes, we got four of them.
For crying out loud, I don't know.
Folks, I'm telling you, these people are boring me.
I'm just getting sick and tired of them.
Mirtha is, what's the point in playing this stuff?
It's all a bunch of gobbledygook.
You think it's entertaining?
Merton?
Well, I got some time left.
I'll play a couple of them.
First, I've got to share this with you because this is amazing.
This is a column in the Times Online from the UK by Anatole Kaletsky.
Now, let me tell you who this guy is, if it identifies him.
Anatole Kaletsky.
What does it say about Anatole?
This is one of their writers.
Here's the headline.
The president is adult.
So how can America be such a success story?
Folks, this is so rich.
This is just so good.
Two ceremonial events occurred in Washington on Tuesday evening that shone a spotlight on one of the most important but paradoxical features of a modern democratic society.
The more widely reported was President Bush's State of the Union address, a weak and defensive speech, even by his undemanding standards.
At the other end of Washington, meanwhile, Alan Greenspan, the retiring chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, was bidding farewell to the institution whose skillful management of U.S. monetary policy made him the dominant figure in the world economy for the past 18 years.
What connects these two events is a paradox that has baffled many people, especially in Europe, ever since George W. Bush became president.
For the last five years, America has been led by a president who is clearly not up to the job, a man who is not just inarticulate, but lacking in judgment, intelligence, integrity, charisma, or staying power.
And yet, America as a nation seems to be stronger, more prosperous, and self-confident than ever.
Now, contrast this with the stories we get from our own media about everybody's depressed, we're down on the dumps, we're about to go over the edge here because of high gas prices in the war.
And here's this Brit just doesn't understand it, just beside himself.
Bush is a blithering idiot, and yet the country's doing so well he can't understand it.
As the State of the Union address made clear, President Bush has more or less given up on all the grand goals that were supposed to define his presidency.
And now comes the paradox.
While America has been run by one of the most doltishly ineffectual governments in history, it is forged ever further ahead of Europe in terms of wealth, science, technology, artistic creativity, and cultural dominance.
Why does America's prosperity and self-confidence seem to bear so little relationship to the competence of its government?
The obvious answer is that America, founded on a libertarian theory of minimal government, has always had low expectations of politicians.
In America, it's not just business that thrives independently of government, perhaps even in spite of government.
Same's also true of other areas of excellence, which in Britain are considered quintessentially in the public domain.
Higher education, leading-edge science, culture, and academic research.
Because Americans expect so little of their government, they are rarely disappointed.
They don't stump into German-style angst when their governments fail to find solutions to the nation's problems.
This anarchic spirit was summed up by Ronald Reagan.
The 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
In Europe, by contrast, the public expect government to solve all the problems, and the media try to hold politicians accountable for everything.
The result is a culture of dependency that extends far beyond the welfare state to business and to the worlds of education, medicine, arts, and the science.
The American approach has a powerful advantage rooted in human nature.
Private sector activity is powered by economic incentives while the state must operate by rules and sanctions.
Since incentives, as Adam Smith observed, are much more likely to stimulate creativity and effort than sanctions, private enterprise tends to achieve ambitious objectives while government often fails.
But while the weakness of U.S. government may in some ways have helped to widen the gulf of achievement between America and Europe, there is another and opposite side to the story, which is where we must return to Mr. Greenspan.
American politicians may be incompetent and venal, even by European standards, but this is not true of the public realm as a whole.
America has a host of public institutions ranging from government bodies such as the Federal Reserve and the National Institutes of Health to charities such as the great universities, museums, and hospitals driven by a sense of public service that puts British and European bureaucracies to shame.
The American system recognizes that a capitalist economy has areas of market failure where incentives alone will not produce socially desirable results.
But American public institutions try to maximize private activity and incentives rather than rein them in within their realms, whether it's universities encouraging professors to start businesses or health administrators creating incentives for drug companies to do medical research.
It's in this respect that Greenspan most clearly represented the genius of the American system.
Although a passionate advocate of small government, he realized that well-judged public intervention was necessary, not just to maintain stable prices, but also to create the incentives for private enterprise to accelerate economic growth.
While Greenspan believed that private incentives solve economic problems more successfully than government dictates, he also understood that capitalism works at its best if it operates in a sound, simple framework of ambitiously pro-growth monetary policy.
His genius was to understand that public policy could be simultaneously minimalist and ambitious.
In a sense, this is the genius of the American system, and this is why America does not need a genius in the White House.
Now, this is, to me, is just rich.
Now, the Times Online is not one of the UK's liberal rags.
And this guy clearly understands capitalism.
He understands why America is superior.
And he's writing to a British audience, don't forget.
And so they all think Bush is an idiot, and they all think Bush is doltish, and they don't understand why it is that we surpass everybody.
You could have written this piece 50 years ago.
You could have written it 100 years ago.
We have always surpassed everybody since the Industrial Revolution.
We have just kicked butt.
But, you know, there's a, I think, a more deeply rooted answer to this.
Of course, capitalism versus socialism is key.
And I'm not trying to de-emphasize the roots of capitalism because I think the deeper reason is rooted directly to capitalism, and that simply is freedom.
It's nothing really more complicated than that.
It is freedom that allows Americans to pursue whatever ambition and desire they choose to muster to become whatever it is they want to become.
You want to become average?
You can do it.
You want to stay mediocre?
You can do it.
You want to excel?
You can do it.
You want to set records in things?
You can do it.
You can certainly try.
It's all up to the individual.
If you don't like the job you have, you can quit.
If you get fired from five or ten jobs, you can start your own.
You create your own job in this country.
There are really no limits.
The only limits that people face usually are those they impose on themselves.
Well, I can't leave this town, my family.
Okay, fine.
That's totally understandable, but understand your options are going to be restricted by whatever they are available in where you live.
But that's freedom.
People can choose to do what they want.
There's also another thing.
Because you can go back to this guy's discussion of expectations, what the British people, European people, expect of their government.
Expect their problems to be solved by government.
Americans expect to solve their own.
Now, we've got a large class that's been created by liberalism in this country that is totally dependent, and they have made themselves out to be victims, and they expect everybody else to solve their problems.
But they don't define who we are.
They drag us down, but we still overcome the drag.
And we are the most powerful economic engine for freedom and prosperity that there has ever been in the history of humanity.
And it's because we have high expectations of ourselves, not high expectations of our government.
Expect our government to do the right thing, but stay out of our way.
It's the expectations we have of ourselves.
The Europeans, look at the French and the Germans.
What possible expectations can they have of themselves?
Their expectation is to hold on to what they got.
Their expectation is sort of like to prevent defense.
Well, let's not lose.
But there's no thought of how do we win?
How do we compete?
How do we go further?
All they do is denigrate and impugn those around them who have that attitude, including us.
Because we've become so popular, because we have become so prosperous, so powerful, we have a lot of enemies.
People who would like to stop and alter our basic way of living and doing things because they think it threatens them, and they're just jealous that it makes their systems look bad.
And so there are enemies all over the country trying to take us out.
We expect our government to stop these attacks, to defend us, to protect the country, to allow us, the citizens, to keep doing what we've doing that define the country.
See, the dirty little secret is: no matter who the president is, the people who make this country work understand that they can overcome a rock gut president or work in tandem with and prosper with somebody who's decent.
We do not allow ourselves to go dormant when we've got some lackey as a president.
We just complain and whine and moan and then vote the son of a gun out next time we have a chance.
But it's the people of this country who are the economy.
We are the economic engine.
It's not that we're sitting around waiting for our elected leaders, politicians, academics, universities, who the hell cares what else, to make things right.
People in this country who get ahead take on that responsibility themselves.
And it's real simple to explain.
Now, if you want to throw a greenspan in the mix, I've got no problem with that.
Everybody's got a role and so forth.
But this is just an attempt to denigrate George W. Bush.
But in the process, what the peace actually has ended up doing is singing one of the greatest songs of praise for the American people and the American culture.
And I don't know if he intended to do that or not, that I've seen in recent years, especially in the foreign press.
We'll be back after this and roll right on.
All right, folks, I'm going to blow off the John Murthy soundbites.
I don't want to listen to them anyway.
And I've just looked at the official broadcast clock and we don't have time.
I simply have more important things to do.
All right, I'll compromise.
I'll compromise.
We'll play just one.
I'm just going to play the first one.
I haven't even bothered to read these transcripts to find out which might be the quote-unquote best.
What does he say here?
Well, not winning in Iraq.
What's new about that?
See him retreat from the rated.
All right, well, grab number nine out there, Aldemont, because this is good.
I mean, this Matthew says, right after we went into Iraq, the real gung-hole hawks, the neoconservative intellectuals, said, oh, great, now we can go into Syria.
Now we can go into Iran.
They were hoping we'd make quick work of Iraq and move on to those other target countries.
You think they've learned their lesson?
Are they still hawkish about our ability to just go into any Arab country we want to, knock down the leadership, hold elections, have people on our side?
But I say to them, you sit back here in your air-conditioned offices and you want to send those troops out there into the desert to face that hard.
A very small proportion of this country is fighting this war.
The American soldier, the American Marine, the American service person, plus the families, they're the only ones making the sacrifice.
We're giving big tax cuts.
We're doing everything else.
We're sacrificing, actually, in this country, cutting back on all kinds of things in order to fund the war in Iraq, which is a civil war, which we're caught in.
All right, you satisfied?
All these cutbacks, the budget keeps growing.
We're cutting back nothing, zero, zilch, nada, no cutbacks.
So he wants to raise taxes.
He wants to retreat from Iraq and raise taxes and not defend the country anywhere else.
Is that good enough for you?
Is there anything new?
No, there's nothing.
It has been Jack Murthy since Jack Murthy started talking about this.
Here's this headline.
Volunteers for deja vu study wanted.
It seems like I've read about this before.
Never mind.
Three Massachusetts women.
Got to be quick here, folks.
Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion groups sued Walmart yesterday saying that the retail giant violated a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.
The suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston seeks a court order compelling the company to stock the so-called morning after pill in its 44 Walmarts and four Sam Club stores.
And when you people make up your minds, you either want to put these stores out of business and get rid of them or you want them to sell what you want.
I'm telling you, Snerdley, you probably know this.
The last place you want to be is between a liberal who gets herself pregnant and a morning after pill.
You wouldn't know about that from experience.
Well, I'm just, I think these babes ought to first prove that they've had sex with a man.
You know, that's in Boston.
They're crying out loud.
Let's make them prove that they first had sex with a man, and then we'll talk about stocking the morning after pill at Walmart.
But it's absolutely insane.
They want to put this outfit out of business, and now they want to storm the place for their morning after pills.
Folks, don't get between a liberal and her morning after pill.
Just do not do it.
Alan in San Antonio, Texas, I want to get you in here quickly.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Mega Ditto's Rush.
I'm a doctor, and I see patients who are non-compliant and irresponsible every day.
The only way that a patient will do what's good for him is, well, you know, at least the non-compliant ones, is if they would say, lose some of their Social Security when they do something wrong, i.e., if they go to a hospital and it turns out it's because they didn't take their antibiotic or they didn't take their LASICs, that they lose, say, 5% or 10% of their check.
And let me tell you, it ain't going to happen.
Well, I know, but what are we going to do?
Well, what's going on?
No, no.
And there's a way.
What you're essentially saying is make them pay for it themselves and they'll use it responsibly.
They will claim they don't have the money.
Well, then it'll be tough toenails.
They don't get the morning after pill or whatever it is they want.
Well, there are not many 65-year-olds looking for that.
But I'm talking about if the health savings account moves forward and there is a mechanism set up for them to have money for these purposes, for these expenses, when they have to, I don't care, when you have to pay for whatever it is yourself, you budget for it.
Now, I know we've got a big problem.
Healthcare is considered an entitlement.
It's like Social Security.
At some point, if we don't take a stab at fixing it, the bill's going to come due someday, and it isn't going to be pretty.
Back in just a moment.
Have you people heard about this gang of sicko Colombian drug pushers that surgically implanted packets of liquid heroin into these adorable, cute little puppies?
You've seen the picture of these little dogs in an evil plot to smuggle millions of dollars worth of drugs into the U.S. New York City DEA chief John Gilbride said, I think it's outrageous and heinous they'd use small, innocent puppies in this way.
Yeah, the old way was to use little 10-year-old girls, and then we'd have to strip search them.
Remember that from Senator Kennedy?
So I don't know how we found out about the dogs, because how do you strip search a dog?
Well, the dog's already stripped.
But nevertheless, the plot has been uncovered.
And that's it, folks.
Sadly out of busy broadcast time.
Back with Open Mind Friday tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection