All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
April 18, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I mean, I'm sorry I laughed at it.
I just saw some video of Iran doing their own May Day thing with their troops.
Go walk them.
And they had their signs up in their native language and they had them translated.
The sign that said, we can.
Obviously, they have an audience other than their own population intended.
Greetings, my good friends, and welcome back.
The fastest three hours in media underway.
The award-winning Rush Limbaugh program is on the air at 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, we have learned, ladies and gentlemen, why the Democratic Party is raising such a stink in Indiana about the requirement that every voter have a photo ID for every election upcoming.
There are some exemptions allowed, but not very many.
The next election is May the 2nd.
Here's what Mr. Snerdley, the official program observer, was on, this was on CNN yesterday.
And who said this?
Do you recall who's okay?
Okay, so it was just an anchor reporting it.
All right.
So obviously a source somewhere in Indiana.
Here's the scoop, folks.
The reason why it's discriminatory for certain people to be required to have a photo ID to vote in Indiana is this.
Many blacks, because of discrimination, poverty, could not go to the hospital to be born or to give birth.
And so black infants were born at home.
And since they were born at home, they don't have birth certificates.
And without birth certificates, they can't prove who they are.
To paraphrase the Reverend Jackson, they are nobody.
Well, that's what they're saying.
So without a birth certificate, they can't prove who they are, and thus they can't get a photo ID.
But yet they're great citizens and they're out there and they need to vote.
So they're playing the race card here.
They're trying to portray this as a huge number of people that were born at home and not at the hospital, and therefore there's no birth certificate.
Now, if that's the case, how can they have any?
How can they get a job?
How can they do, you know, all the obvious questions that follow from that?
Yeah, I know.
You're not supposed to ask questions.
That's the point.
You're not supposed to ask these questions.
It's insensitive.
You're supposed to be so caught up in sympathy that no question arises.
No question even occurs to you.
But that's what they're saying.
I just got a little interruption here, but he wants to be a little helper.
Dawn says, Rush, I was born at home and I got a birth certificate.
Yeah, I would imagine that you can, at some point, you're going to have to have one.
But again, we're confusing the issue here, folks.
We're not supposed to ask those questions.
They're not even supposed to occur to us.
As I say, we're supposed to be so caught up in sympathy and the like.
Do you know, Dawn, how old you were before you got your birth certificate?
Are you even aware of what had happened?
I say, I see.
Dawn couldn't, her mother couldn't make it to the hospital, so she was born at home.
She definitely has a birth certificate.
Are you sure you're you?
You know, this is the all kinds of questions occur to me here when I hear this reasoning.
All right, see, I told you so.
Giant, see, I told you so.
You remember back in 1993, the Clinton administration Family Medical Leave Act?
What did I warn you people about back then?
I said, the first thing that's going to happen won't be long.
The original Family Medical Leave Act did not pay anybody.
It gave you 12 weeks off from work to go to the vet, to appear in a parade, to go shopping or what have you.
And the employer had to go out and get a substitute for you.
And I said, after a while, Democrats do these things in stages.
After a while, it'll occur to people that most people can't afford 12 weeks off without being paid.
So paid family medical leave will happen.
And lo and behold, after a few short years, there was partial compensation included for Family Medical Leave Act.
Now, 2008 presidential hopeful, Hillary Rotham Clinton is calling for a massive expansion of the 1993 Family Medical Leave Act, saying that an updated version should offer time off from work for parental participation in children's school activities and health care, as well as personal time to care for aging parents.
The previous Family Medical Leave Act just allowed you time off for your health problems or your dog's health problems or whatever.
But now Hillary wants to include: if you want to go to your children's school activities or if your children have health problems, you should be able to stay home.
She said to a Brown University audience during a speech on women's leadership last week, she said, We make it about as hard in our country as possible for people to do the most important job there is in any society, and that's raising and nurturing the next generation.
Since the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in my husband's administration, more than 50 million men and women have taken advantage of it.
Well, I think it needs to be updated, and it needs to be expanded somewhat.
She insisted that there should be time available for teachers' conferences and doctors' appointments to be involved in your children's lives to increasingly care for your aging parents.
She said that as Americans live longer, they would increasingly be caretakers longer.
The Family Medical Leave Act already mandates that employers grant 12 weeks' time off to care for newborn children.
Mrs. Clinton did not offer any estimate of the costs to businesses under her expanded family leave program, nor did she explain how her new proposal might affect the nation's unemployment rate.
But it's just typical.
These libs come up with ideas.
I've warned you people, I don't know how many times about this.
Problem A exists.
Liberals ride to the rescue to solve the problem.
The only thing is, they don't solve beans.
They don't solve diddly squat.
All they do is create a whole new problem.
They expand the problem.
And they come back and it'll need to be fixed later on because the fix is never good enough.
It doesn't work because liberal fixes never work.
We're never to examine the results.
We're to always examine the good intentions.
You know, in fact, I think where we're headed with this, folks, if you want to know the truth, I mean, think of France on this.
If Hillary gets her way, if the Liberals get their way, the Family and Medical Leave Act, once it is fully expanded, will allow employees once in a while to show up for work.
The rest of the time is up to them.
It will require them, you know, maybe a month, six weeks total a year to actually show up for work.
The rest of the time to devote to nurturing the next generation.
All of it fully compensated with all benefits by the employer.
Because remember, it's not the employee's duty to work.
It's the employer's duty to pay.
So before we go to the break, by the way, you know what would happen with this if this ever happened, if she gets what she wants?
I'm an employer.
I'm the EIB network.
Let's say that this happens.
I am not going to hire anybody with young kids.
And I'm not going to hire anybody with sick parents.
I'm going to look for somebody who has no kids, no pets.
I'm going to look for somebody who has no excuse to leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.
Thanks, Hillary.
I'll find out.
I don't care if I can ask those questions or not.
I'll find out.
I have investigators.
I'll require a birth certificate.
That's exactly what I'll do.
Require a birth certificate and a photo ID.
I'll do what they do at the polling places.
I can find out what I want to know about prospective employers.
Anyway, well, I better take the break.
Do you remember the name Nina Burley ring a bell?
Nina.
That's right.
Another, boy, are you people fortunate?
Another reason why my staff does not have microphones.
One of the staff remembered who Nina Burley is and quite accurately described it to me.
Nina Burley, the journalist, drive-by media specialist.
By the way, you know, there's an interesting question.
The drive-by media, there are victims of the drive-by media.
There are, you know, where do they end up?
Where's the junkyard for all the wrecks?
I'll point that out to you in just a moment.
Nina Burley, drive-by media member, who once wrote, don't remember where.
She might have said it in a speech.
She writes for salon.com, but she once said that she would gladly give Bill Clinton a Monica Lewinsky for only one reason, just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.
She has written the most unbelievable piece in salon.com.
I just want to share some excerpts of it with you when we return.
We've got some audio soundbites as well.
A lot to squeeze here in the final hour, but we'll make it count when we come back.
Okay, let me just share excerpts.
So we got some soundbites from Rumsfeld and from the Drive-By Media.
And we've got some audio soundbites from Richard Holbrook, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, appearing to know much more than he lets on about this general's protest of Rumsfeld.
Nina Burley, to remind you, offered Bill Clinton publicly a Monica Lewinsky just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.
She begins her piece that ran yesterday in salon.com thus, I cringed as my young son recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
But who was I to question his innocent trust in a nation I long ago lost faith in?
When people give directions to the upstate New York hamlet of Narrowsburg, they always refer to the big red brick schoolhouse at the stoplight.
Narrowsburg Central Rural School has been on the hill on School Street since 1929, educating four generations of local children.
She goes on to describe the moved up there because she and her husband got sick and tired of living in the city.
They had a summer house and so forth.
Our family first arrived in Narrowsburg in 2000 as city people hunting for a cheap house.
For barely $50,000, we were able to buy the weekend house we thought would complete our metropolitan existence.
But soon after we closed in the home, we moved to Paris, spurred by the serendipitous arrival of a book contract.
When our European idol ended after two years and with tenants still subletting our city apartment, we moved into the Narrowsburg house.
After growing accustomed to the French social system with its cheap medicine, generous welfare, short work week, and plentiful childcare, life back in depressed upstate New York felt especially harsh.
We'd never planned to get involved in the life of the town, nor had it ever occurred to us that we might send our son to the Narrowsburg school, but suddenly we were upstate locals with a real stake in the community.
For the first few months, we felt uneasy.
80 of Narrowsburg's 319 adults are military veterans.
At least 10 recent scruple graduates are serving in Iraq or at another base overseas right now.
The school's defining philosophy was traditional and conservative, starting with a sit-down-in-your-seat brand of discipline, leavened with a rafter-shaking reverence for country and flag.
Every day, the students gathered in a gym for the morning program open to parents, which began with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a patriotic song, and then discussion of a word of the week.
During the first few weeks, the words of the week seemed suspiciously tied to a certain political persuasion.
Military, tour, nation, and alliance were among them.
But it wasn't until our son came home with an invitation in his backpack to attend a released-time Bible class that my husband and I panicked.
So we called the ACLU.
We learned this was an entirely legal way for evangelicals to proselytize to children during scruel hours.
While we were never identified as the people to drop the dime to the ACLU, there was clearly no one else in the scrule community who would have done so, and the principal never looked at us quite as warmly again.
When we later learned that the cheery kindergarten teacher belonged to one of the most conservative evangelical churches in town, we were careful not to challenge anyone or to express any opinion about politics or religion out of fear our son would be singled out.
Instead, to counteract any God and country indoctrination he received in school, we began our own informal in-home instruction about Bush, Iraq, and Washington over the evening news.
If you knew nothing else of the world, if you were just five or six or ten years old, and this place was your only America, you wouldn't have any reason at all to question the Narrowsburg school's morning program routine.
Hand over heart, my son belted out the pledge with gusto every morning, memorized and sang Star-Spangled Banner.
I never stopped resisting the urge to sit down in silent protest during the pledge, but I also never failed to get choked up when they sang America the Beautiful.
And in simple, I'm just reading excerpts here.
I don't have time to read the whole thing.
In simple language, I told my son that our president had started a war with a country called Iraq.
I said we were bombing cities and destroying buildings.
And I explained that families just like ours now had no money or food because their parents didn't have offices to go to anymore or bosses to pay them.
America did this, my son asked, incredulous.
Yes, America did this, I answered.
He paused, a long silence, then burst out, but mommy, I love America.
I want a hung America.
We've since returned to the city, driven back to urban life more by adult boredom than our children's lack of educational opportunities.
Our son's enrolled in a well-rated K-5 public school on the upper west side of Manhattan.
Not surprisingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer part of his morning routine.
Come to think of it, and I could be wrong, I've never even seen a flag on the premises.
My husband and I realized, though, that Narrowsburg did more than mold our boy into a patriot.
He can, it turns out, despite the warnings of other city parents, read at a level twice that of his new peers on the Upper West Side.
Since we returned to the city, he's learned how to ride a bike, long for an Xbox, practice a few new swear words.
Oh, what did I do with the rest?
I cannot believe that.
Hang on just a second.
Oh, my, what did I do organizing this today?
This is what happens when you have stacks overflow.
At any rate, she ends up expressing relief that her son no longer is faced with these Neanderthal conservatives up in Narrowsburg, New York.
We will link to this on the website and you can read the whole thing yourself.
There's much more to this than what I read.
Clearly, we have a liberal that just felt totally out of place anywhere where God, country, victory, patriotism were proudly on display.
And that's the primary theme that she writes about.
All right, now the audio sound bites from this afternoon with Donald Rumsfeld.
Unidentified reporter says, the outpouring of criticism of you suggests there's a great deal of dissatisfaction within the office with your leadership.
So how can you lead the department effectively if that's the case?
And what are you doing personally to address the concerns that they have?
I don't know that that's the case.
They're always, you know, we've got, what, 6,000, 7,000 retired admirals and generals.
Anyone who thinks that they're going to be unanimous on anything?
Look at the votes of the House of Representatives.
It's 51, 49, 55, 45.
Same thing in the Senate.
Look at our country when we vote.
There are always differences of opinion.
That's a healthy thing in this country.
We ought to respect it and get about our business.
But if it paralyzes people because someone doesn't agree with them, my goodness gracious, we wouldn't be able to do anything.
Okay, that's Rumsfeld.
Now we move on to Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He added this to that question.
It'd be unfair to leave that statement the way it is.
It is not my experience that that's true.
Colonel Haguey, a comment on Marine Corps, just came back from, I think it was a week in Iraq.
He got exactly zero questions about the leadership in the department last week.
While all this is going on back here, guess what they're focused on out there?
They're focused on their mission, getting the job done.
The Sergeant Major, my Sergeant Major, Sergeant Major Gainey, just got back from the Gulf region himself, and he received no questions like that, even though he did a lot of probing.
Fact of the matter is that the folks who are out doing this nation's business are appreciative of the leadership that's being provided and understand the missions they have and the value of what they're doing.
Interesting answer.
It illustrates exactly what we've been saying for a long time here.
We're winning the war over there.
We're losing it here.
Here you have these six or seven generals, whatever it is, I guess seven if you throw Ashley Wilkes in there.
And the drive-by media template, an action line, is established.
Rumsfeld's got to go.
Rumsfeld sucks.
Rumsfeld stinks.
Nobody likes Rumsfeld.
Everybody hates Rumsfeld.
The troops are demoralized.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Pace says, it'd be unfair to leave that statement, the statement of the reporter, the way it is.
It's not my experience that that's true.
Comment down to the Marine Corps came back.
Nobody talked to him about the plan.
Nobody questioned the mission.
Nobody expressed any resolve or upset about this.
Some of you might be saying, of course not.
They're enlisted grunts.
They're going to tell these people what's wrong.
Not my experience.
I've seen town meetings with Rumsfeld and military personnel enlisted where they ask him pointed questions.
Anyway, quick timeout.
We will be back.
I want you to hear what President Bush said today in the Rose Garden about Rumsfeld and what kind of response it created in the drive-by media.
Stay with us, my friends.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Yes.
And we're back at 800-282-2882.
Audio soundbite number two.
Mike, this is the president today in a Rose Garden.
CNN Zed Henry says, What do you say to critics who believe that you're ignoring the advice of retired?
This is like the question Rumsfeld got the other day.
Oh, you know, a couple of books have been off two or three years stating things in there that you haven't disputed.
And Rumsfeld, I don't have time to dispute a thing.
I've got a real job.
I've got a day job here.
I don't have all my time to run around disputing what people in this group, meaning the media, have to say.
So what do you say to critics who believe you're ignoring the advice of retired generals, military commanders who say that there needs to be a change?
I say, I listen to all voices, but mine's the final decision.
And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job.
He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror.
He's helping us fight a war on terror.
I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.
I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation, but I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.
And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.
Exclamation point.
But what about the question?
What do you say to critics who believe you're ignoring the, what's he supposed to do?
Respond to every bit of criticism he gets from a minority of any group and do what they say?
Yes, because that's the media action line.
That's where the story will be advanced.
So now the media knows that Rumsfeld's not leaving.
So the talking points and the drive by media are shifting.
The talking point has gone from Rumsfeld must go to it doesn't matter if Rumsfeld goes, because even if he did go, it wouldn't make any difference because Bush is the problem.
George Bush's basic policies are not only set in stone, they're set in titanium.
What difference would it make?
I mean, the policy is unlikely to change.
I don't know what would be any different.
We're three defense secretaries away from doing well in Iraq.
It's more governed by what's happening on the ground in Iraq than what's happening in a defense secretary's chair.
Is the president going to change his policies?
I doubt that.
What's the difference?
Who's there to implement the policies?
It's going to take a lot more than cosmetics.
So a little bit of disappointment.
Oh, well, it doesn't matter anyway because nothing's going to change because Bush is the Neanderthal.
Bush is the problem.
Screw Bush.
We hate Bush anyway.
Here's a little Richard Holbrook.
And he was on Hardball last night with Chris Matthews.
And Matthews says, explain, if you can, Richard, what is the long screwdriver metaphor?
You see, Rumsfeld is the long screwdriver.
What does that mean?
The long screwdriver is an extraordinarily vivid metaphor used in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan for the 9,000-mile length of the micromanagement.
And this is their words, not mine, of the Secretary of Defense.
And you can see this on specific programs like training of the Afghan Army, training of the Iraqi Army.
He sticks to it.
And he has not allowed the people in the field to get it right.
And he needs to move on so that somebody else can rethink the programs from the bottom up.
The long screwdriver is the military's phrase for the way he operates.
Now, this sounds to me like Holbrook's involved in all this, doesn't it?
He's got to go.
Holbrook wrote this op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Sunday, predicting that there will be more generals and even some that are currently active come forth.
So it's possible that there's an organized movement here despite the protests to the contrary.
Next question from Matthews.
So you said something very interesting a couple minutes ago, Richard, that it could well be that we will have troops in Afghanistan longer than we'll have them in Iraq.
We cannot afford to leave Afghanistan, and we are going to have to get it right.
And it is a long-term prospect.
And I think the administration does not want to say that publicly because it casts an additional shadow on the problem in Iraq.
But in retrospect, it's clear that General Franks and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made a historic era when they began to strip the forces out of Afghanistan in 2003 to get ready to attack, excuse me, 2002 when they got ready to attack Iraq before they finished the job in Afghanistan.
We discussed this on your program and elsewhere at the time, but the full cost of it is only clear now.
All right.
Now, this is another popular myth.
And I'm so tired of this.
The myth is that we pulled troops out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq.
We did not.
It didn't happen.
After Holbrook appeared with Matthews, retired Marine Lieutenant General Mike DeLong showed up.
He wrote the supportive op-ed of Rummy that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday.
Matthew says, what about that critical decision to send troops down to Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan?
Whose decision was that?
I listened to Ambassador Holbrook, and I disagree at the same time.
Now, did we take some people out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq?
Yes, we did, but before they went out, we replaced them.
We had more people in Afghanistan as the war kicked off in Iraq than we had the previous year.
And on the same day, March 19th, 2003, at that time, the largest operation that was conducted in Afghanistan went down that day.
So we, yeah, we took some people out, we replaced them.
We did not reduce troop strength in Afghanistan.
This is Mike DeLong, who was at CENTCOM at the time, the number two guy there under Tommy Franks.
And he's telling these people, I don't know how many times this has had to be repeated, but it's one of these drive-by myths, these popular myths that, well, we left Afghanistan, Bush abandoned a war on terror to go after Saddam for whatever nefarious, stupid reason these people keep advancing.
But the problem is they don't have facts on their side.
So the drive-by media.
Where are all the dead bodies buried?
There is a morgue.
There's a drive-by media morgue.
Well, I mean, there is, folks.
And I think we need to create this morgue and put it in my newsletter, put it on the website to constantly remind you of the drive-by media stories that proved to be nothing but wrong but created chaos.
Here are just some examples.
Remember this: our equipment will not function in Iraqi sandstorms.
Our troops are barely getting one meal a day.
Urban warfare will result in 20,000 troop deaths.
We don't know how to fight an urban guerrilla war.
We're not trained for it.
There's going to be a giant ring of fire in Iraq.
Saddam's going to burn the city.
He's going to set a giant ring of oil and petroleum and explosives on fiber and kill all of our troops once we enter Baghdad.
And of course, the classic, it's a bad war plan, which out of necessity had to be reintroduced as a bad post-war plan because the bad war plan got rid of Saddam inside of a week.
The invasion of Iraq was a remarkable success.
So that bad war plan had to be rewritten as a bad post-war plan, and that is still out there.
It's not in the morgue yet.
Oh, yes, oil for food is a brilliant UN solution to relieve hunger in Iraq.
So, and let's not forget George Bush and the Texas National Guard, Cindy Sheehan.
There are so many stories in the drive-by media morgue, and they have at times killed people.
They have destroyed reputations.
The drive-by media morgue and the Rumsfeld story is going to soon be in the Drive-By Media Morgue as well.
All right.
We go back to the phones of St. Louis.
This is Rick.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Hi.
Hang on one second.
You'll be able to hear me better.
Bear with me just a second.
No, hang on.
Talk about that.
There.
I wanted to talk about what you were saying earlier about the photographing Newton, the photo IDs.
And what I wanted to tell you was that my wife worked for years at St. Louis University's College Church in their soup kitchen.
And that soup kitchen specialized in helping people with other things besides just giving them food.
The thing they wanted most after getting food was getting a photo ID, primarily because it would help them get jobs and secondarily because it would help them get other services.
Right.
And they couldn't care less, most of them, about voting.
But they wanted to be able to eat and they wanted to be able to get clothing and they wanted to be able to get jobs to better themselves.
So these Democrats are so hypocritical when they claim to be representing the interests of the poor, saying it's discriminatory against them to make them get IDs.
They want IDs, but they never get asked.
Well, I know, but they always have a cadre of people that come out and say, well, they don't want an ID that they're afraid of because they're going to be discriminated against because it's just a way for them to be targeted.
As to your point that these homeless and indigent people that you heard about didn't care about voting, Democrats know that, but that's why other than in New Orleans, oh, wait, they do in New Orleans use a school buses to round them up to vote.
They'll find them.
Democrats, that's what voter outreach is.
They go into these communities, walk around money.
They load them on buses, take them to the polls, show them how to vote.
But they can't do that anymore if they don't have a photo ID.
So they tried to defeat the whole concept.
Robert, quickly, Laguna, Nigel, California, welcome to the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
Great to talk with you.
Thank you.
I just wanted to say that rational arguments on this issue, this voter ID issue, really mean nothing to the Democrats.
I went to Sacramento to argue on the Voter ID Act.
It's a state ballot initiative in California to require ID at the polls.
And we took every argument they had.
They said, well, they can't afford it.
They said, we'll give it to them for free.
They said, well, they can't get out of bed because they're bedridden.
They said, well, let them vote by mail.
We took every argument point by point.
And when they had nothing left to say, they all voted against it.
If they have something to gain by this, if they're going to get votes, there's no way that they're going to fight tooth and nail to stop this.
Oh, there's no question.
That's what's so amazing about it.
They're making it obvious.
They're making it obvious that they need to cheat, that they need to engage in voter fraud, and the voter ID confounds them.
They don't care to admit that.
They won't admit they're for tax increases.
They won't admit all these other things they want to do as liberals and socialists.
But they'll come out and they'll leave no doubt about the fact that the voter ID plan screws them because they can't cheat at the polls.
But, well, every objection they raised, that was a funny litany.
They can't get there.
They're bedridden.
Let them vote by mail.
Thanks for that.
Robert, a quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue here right after this.
By the way, folks, the stock markets are going bonkers out there.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average up 158 points today, 11,220.
Let me, what is it?
11,234 is its number.
NASDAQ's up 34, and that's 35 now, and that's 2,347.
The reason why the markets are going gangbusters today is that somebody leaked the minutes of the most recent Federal Reserve meeting in which the Federal Reserve Board indicated that we're very, very close, if not already there, to the end of rising interest rates.
So the market's going, yeah, yeah, yeah, supposedly.
If anybody really knows, that probably is a factor in this case.
But the oil prices at $70 a barrel are getting close to it.
And you know the reason for that?
Yeah, it's Iran where, yeah, speculators in the oil markets are concerned about forthcoming hostilities between the United States and Iraq, and it might interrupt oil supplies.
Now, I guess.
I don't know enough to know that that's true or not.
Well, I know the Nigerians are 25% off their production, too.
That's probably more of a factor than, I mean, there isn't anybody out there who seriously thinks that within the next two to three months, there's going to be six October surprise.
We bomb Iraq, but not before then.
Iran, sorry, Iran, yes.
Vicki in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I'm calling about the Nina Burley article.
Yes.
And I have to say, Nina, welcome to our world.
The education establishment has an iron fist control over most of the public schools in this country.
To complain about one and how horrible and scary and Hitler-ish it is is like saying that Fox News has no business being on because it's one-sided.
The whole world is the other way around.
Well, but she wasn't.
She wasn't really.
You have to read the whole thing.
I just read excerpts.
This is a kindergarten.
And she was.
It doesn't matter.
I know, I know, but she was appalled at the service to patriotism and country and Star-Spangled Banner and Pledge of Allegiance.
And she cringed when she saw that and so forth.
She never advocated for the school to be shut down, but it is, and she's happy about it.
The school's no longer open, but she says the flag still flies over it.
She said what the experience taught her is that her son's patriotism was just innocence.
It was just total innocence, and it reminded her that she and her fellow liberals love the country too.
It's so sad, Rush, what she's doing to her son.
That makes me so sad, what she said to her son.
I've sent my children here in Chapel Hill.
I'm one of like, I don't know, four conservatives in Chapel Hill.
I sent my kids to school.
I don't want my kids seeing demonstrations of birth control devices.
I opted out.
I told them I wanted them out of the classroom.
From then on, I was never looked at the same.
I told them I didn't want my kids writing hate mail to Jesse Helms.
I was never, and the kids were never looked at the same.
That's the typical public school education.
It's the opposite of what she said.
The school she talked about, I would love to live there.
I wish I knew of one like that.
That would excellent.
That would show our kids proper patriotism and teach them well at the same time.
That's an excellent point.
She really does make a point of saying how upset she was that love of country was taught the way it was.
Look, we're going to link to this piece at rushlimbaugh.com, and you'll be able to read the whole thing.
The whole thing, you won't, and keep in mind who this woman is.
She offered Bill Clinton a Monica Lewinsky in public just to thank Clinton for protecting abortion.
I think you're right.
I mean, your reaction to this is exactly correct.
Hey, Nina, welcome to most of America in reverse.
But everything's okay now because she's got her kid enrolled up there in the Upper West Side public system, and that's just hunky-dory.
I'm glad you called, Vicki.
Thanks so much.
Little note here from the BBC, their Radio 4 channel.
Simon Cox got a big special.
I don't know who he is, but something happening in Great Britain is important.
On Thursday, overselling climate change.
Simon Cox will report on how scientists are becoming worried by the quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate predictions.
Every week, we're assailed by scare stories about the climate, malaria in Africa, hurricanes in Florida, even the death of frogs in Latin America, all being linked to global warming.
But does the science behind these claims really stand up?
Or are the risks of climate change being oversold to win the battle for influence?
When they start questioning this at the BBC, and then you coupled this story, this is from Canada.com.
About one quarter of Canadians believe global warming will lead to the destruction of the planet.
Three-fourths do not.
In other words, a vast majority of Canadians, liberals, socialists, do not think global warming will destroy the planet.
Now, this is interesting because the effort has been going on for 20 years, and the reason, I think, is that they've gotten so extreme and so outrageous with some of their claims.
They're so inconsistent that they can't bring people into the movement, as I long ago predicted.
Well, that's it.
Another exciting excursion of broadcast excellence in the can.
All three hours soon to be at our secret warehouse where artifacts for the future Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting are being held.
It's been fun today, folks, as always, and I can't wait for tomorrow.
We'll start Rev it up all over again then.
▲
Export Selection