All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
June 5, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's a real phenomenon.
You mean this cutting and self-abuse business out there among students?
Real phenomena.
Well, I just got an email from a friend that said it's old news, that movies have been made about it, that Oprah's done shows on it, that it's such old news that surprised I hadn't heard about it.
Well, I know I'm world's foremost authority, but I've not run across that, nor the psychological analysis of why people are cutting themselves up.
At any rate, greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you.
El Rushboe serving humanity simply by showing up.
Here are the one and only EIB network, the Rush Limbaugh Program, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
It appears that Dana L, who wrote the Washington Post piece yesterday in the Outlook section about how the Bush administration's conservative policies are responsible for her having to have an abortion.
She's doing a chat, the Washington Post website.
And Catherine Gene Lopez at National Review Online alerted me to this.
And here's an exchange between somebody that wrote Dana L a question from Myersville, Maryland.
Thanks for the honest article, Dana L. Does Planned Parenthood distribute Plan B in Virginia, or is it only available through MD offices?
If not, is it because of Virginia's state laws regarding the distribution of birth control?
Dana L's reply, I believe Planned Parenthood distributes Plan B nationwide.
Unfortunately for me, in my panic that Friday, I didn't even think of calling Planned Parenthood.
She forgot to call Planned Parenthood.
So the bottom line is that the conservative political philosophies and policies of the Bush administration are not at fault.
It's her own memory.
If she had called Plan, I guarantee you, Planned Parenthood would have probably delivered the stuff if she had told him she's going to write a piece in the Washington Post about all this.
Although at that time, I doubt that she knew that.
You know, there's still buzzing in New York about the budget cuts from Homeland Security.
Our buddies at Newsmax went back and did some research, and they found some fascinating, and they found it from the New York Daily News last December.
New York politicians allowed up to one-third of the original $20 billion in federal aid awarded to the city in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks to be squandered right under their noses.
But that, of course, has not stopped some of the same politicians from complaining all weekend about $80 million, a mere $80 million compared to the $20 billion they got at first, cut in New York City's federal anti-terrorism budget.
You've had Hillary and Chuck Schumer, Peter King, say that they're outraged over these cuts with Clinton and King teaming up to launch a postcard writing campaign against the Department of Homeland Security.
At any rate, here's what the study in the New York Daily News found, and it was published last December.
Up to one-third of the $21.4 billion.
Now, keep in mind we're talking about $80 million in cuts here that these guys just blew their stacks over.
Up to one-third or $7 billion, up to $7 billion in 9-11 cash awarded to New York City by the White House had been earmarked for major transportation projects that had no connection to the devastation caused on 9-11.
$150,000 was awarded to a securities firm that had gone out of business before the 9-11 attacks, plus millions more from the fund was earmarked for formerly self-supporting projects.
$10 million in 9-11 cash was embezzled by a senior member of the New York Medical Examiner's Office.
A 9-11 clean air program ended up giving away 118,000 air conditioners when its original budget covered only 5,000 units.
The total cost overrun there was $115 million.
Get this.
An associate of the Lucchese crime family allegedly got a piece of the 9-11 pie, dividing up anticipated reconstruction contracts with other New York crime families.
One mobbed up 9-11 worker was listed as a $58,000 per year employee, even though he was in jail at the time.
A whopping $154 million in grants and tax-exempt liberty bonds was awarded to a single business, the Bank of New York.
That small piece of the 9-11 jackpot represents nearly twice the amount of cuts in New York City's federal anti-terrorism budget, which is again a little less than $80 million.
So what does this add up to?
It's $80 million versus $7 billion of the first $21 billion that they got that wasn't even spent on Homeland Security.
And it's the same thing that happened with the tobacco settlement money.
All that money got spent on things totally unrelated to the reason the money was awarded to them in the first place.
When you throw big stashes of money at government, they're just going to spend it as government does in all kinds of different ways to buy votes or to secure patronage or what have you.
And when you read through this stuff, what they end up buying, 118, would somebody tell me clean air program going out and buying and giving away 118,000 air conditioners as part of an anti-terrorism campaign?
I just, it's just typical.
And to listen to these politicians whine and moan over their $80 million and how it represents New York now at greater risk and so forth is just silly.
I'll tell you what, the Department of Homeland Security and these grants to most politicians and elected officials is nothing more than an opportunity to grow government.
It's what the Senate's immigration bill is all about.
It's just the latest effort to grow government.
It's what global warming is all about.
When you strip it all away, look at Gore.
Gore's the latest example.
He's got a big movie out there.
Isn't it fascinating that all the big players in the global warming debate are celebrities?
None of them are really scientists.
Gore can't make a claim to be a scientist.
William Gray, there's a column in the Denver Post today.
I can't remember the author's name.
He quotes Bill Gray, the famed hurricane forecaster and expert, as saying, this is just, it's mindless.
It's been 20 years of brainwashing going on out there about global warming.
He said a lot of young scientists don't buy into any of this.
They don't dare speak up because who needs it?
They don't need the ridicule.
There's funding involved in this.
Gray says, I think what's going to happen in the next four years, we're going to start seeing a cooling, just like they were talking about in that Newsweek piece in 1975 or 79, whenever it was, about the oncoming global cooling.
All this, if you look at what the prescriptions are for global warming, from Kyoto to gore to anything else, it's all about government controlling more choices on the part of the American people.
And in that sense, denying choice.
You're going to be told what kind of car you have to drive.
You're going to be told what kind of fuel you have to use.
You're going to be told all kinds of, if that's it, all this is, is just the, it's two things.
I mean, the real wacko activists are nothing more than a bunch of anti-capitalists who are seeking punitive action against the United States because they're self-loathing.
They're angry.
They're hateful.
They despise our size, our prosperity, want to cut us down to size in their minds.
The other people are just big government advocates, and they just want government in charge of as much as possible.
The best way to do it is to create a crisis and a scare and go out there and get people thinking only government can solve this problem.
Only government can fix this.
It's what's happening in immigration.
It's what's happening in global warming.
And it's not what's happening with the Homeland Security budget.
We create this new DHS, Department of Homeland Security, this new bureaucracy.
What are they doing?
They're passing out money.
They're passing out money.
They're not patrolling the borders.
Nobody's really concerned about that.
We have this incident up in Canada.
Ought to open everybody's eyes about the real threat that we still face.
The one thing that we are doing that would help is this surveillance, the foreign surveillance.
Just like the Canadians found this cell.
They were monitoring chat room discussions, and they monitored it for a long time.
When they finally got to the point that it took it seriously, they moved in and looked at, lo and behold, what they found.
The one thing that we're trying to do to actually prevent another attack so that we don't need all these resources and all these air conditioners and all the money going to the Lucchese crime family and all of this other gibberish, the very people who are supportive, they claim, of doing something for the war on terror are against and trying to stop on the basis of civil liberties the one thing that makes the most sense.
And because that doesn't grow government in the way they want it grown, that doesn't grow government in terms of money.
You know, it's really contradictory in a sense, too, because these global warming advocates would love to take away your freedom to drive and buy the car of your choice.
But at the same time, some government action is good like that.
Some government action is bad.
Listening to phone calls to find out when terrorists are going to attack, why, that's bad.
Domestic spying on Americans, why, that's bad.
So they have varying degrees to which they like big government.
I'll guarantee you, if it were the Clinton administration doing the spying, and they did, they had echelon.
The Clinton administration was doing all kinds of this and more.
There wasn't a peep about it from the very people upset about it now.
Quick timeout.
Got to go back in just a second.
Here on the cutting edge of societal evolution and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have James of Philadelphia.
Glad you called, sir.
You're up.
Right?
Yes, sir.
Oh, Megan Dittos.
Can you hear me?
Yes, James, I hear you just fine.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I was just calling up in response to that caller who called about the Busby candidate saying that that can never happen with those illegals, that she could never get them to vote or anything like that.
Well, I've worked 20 years in county government.
I was an elected local official, so I dealt a lot with our local, with the county registration, voter registration bureau.
And I saw many times where people could come in with any kind of document, register to vote, and nobody checked it.
The last woman that was the director, she was the only one in the whole voter registration department.
She couldn't get help.
And besides that, they passed a voter registration law in Pennsylvania a couple years ago where you could pick up any kind of card to the post office, fill out your name, and you could go in to vote.
So these people that are involved in these political campaigns, like it's Busby or whatever her name is, they know darn right well that these people can register to vote and they're not going to be checked.
Not only that, I happen to think it's an outreach campaign.
I think it's something that's actively going on.
What you say doesn't surprise me.
Philadelphia.
That's a Democrat town.
It's always been a Democrat town.
Look at the past in Chicago, all the jokes people told about dead people voting folks.
If there's fraudulent voting anywhere, there's fraudulent voting.
If there's fraudulent registration, it's fraudulent registration.
So if dead people are registered to vote, if people without proper identification are allowed to register to vote, then why is it so difficult to make the leap and assume that a candidate running for the House in California would secure the assistance or try to of illegal aliens?
Look at every time the Democrats react.
Look at how they react every time somebody proposes a law requiring photo ID.
You can't do it, they say.
It's discriminatory.
Picture ID, not fair, not right.
And we hear some of the lamest excuses for anything we've ever heard.
Well, you know, they're black.
They're whore and they're old and they've got memories of slavery.
And they're afraid that if it's just the government trying to keep tabs on them.
And they're good citizens.
Our constituents are very, very troubled about this.
In Georgia, they say, okay, well, if they can't afford it, we will offer it to them for nothing.
And if they don't have a means to get down to the registration office, we will go to their homes.
And the people like the Reverend Zach would say, well, that's even worse.
I mean, if you're going to have a government official come to these people's homes with the fears they already harbor, they can't do that.
This is utter discrimination.
The last time there was a voter ID bill in the Senate, every Democrat voted against it.
Now, folks, there's a reason for this.
The dirty little secret is that in the last 20 years, 20 or 30 years, the Democratic Party has not successfully been able to reach out and recruit new voters among the American citizens.
You go back to 1994, take a look after the House was quote-unquote taken over by the Republicans in what were fair elections, by the way.
Look at the number of Democrats that resigned the House, switched parties.
People forget about this.
Why do you think Hillary Clinton is so eager to legalize felons, convicted felons being able to vote?
Why do you think there is such eagerness on the part of mostly Democrats and unfortunately a lot of Republicans for this illegal immigration bill?
It's because, in addition to all the things I've said about how it represents big government and how it's a direct assault on conservatives, it's a pool of voters.
The Democrats' dirty little secret is their party is shrinking, folks.
And that's why they have to make this outreach.
You take a look.
Just be honest about this.
Examine the Democrats just since Bush took office.
You give me one example where they, with their national chairman, whoever it's been, or their well-stone memorials.
I mean, these people are funeral crashers, or whatever it is-the war in Iraq, the war on terror, their assaults on the U.S. military, their assaults on this.
You tell me one thing they're doing that is inspirational, that is motivational, it makes people want to join their team.
It makes, boy, I wish I was on that team, is not being said by people out there.
And of course, this is it would never be reported, probably wouldn't even be studied because such a thing is unthinkable by the left and in the drive-by media.
That's why they can't come to grips with the fact they're losing these elections.
That's why it's always a voting machine, or it's always a hanging Chad or some such thing.
Little Robert Kennedy in Rolling Stone write a big in-depth piece about how he knows for a fact that 150,000 votes that should have gone to Kerry didn't because the Republicans found a way to cheat.
There's actually a hidden agenda about his piece that I'll explain to you a little bit later in the program.
That's a cover for what actually is the point for these people like Robert Kennedy and others who want to keep raising this issue.
But the bottom line here in this context is all they do is continue to say, we've been cheated out of elections.
And they think that because it's not thinkable they could lose.
There are so many more Democrats than Republicans.
How can this be?
Then you add in the specifics of Bush is an idiot, Bush is stupid, Bush a liar, Bush a Hitler.
How can people be voting for this guy?
Well, they aren't.
It's obviously Republicans are cheating and stealing.
They are losing voters.
The Democratic Party is losing.
This, folks, is why, speaking for myself, I get so frustrated at the Republican Party for not understanding the position they're in and maximizing this opportunity, this phenomenon, by going out and doing what's been done in the last 20, 30 years to expand the Republican Party, which has been conservatism and conservative leadership.
That's the dirty little secret.
The idea that Francine Busby would not, or any Democrat would not, attempt to solicit illegal aliens to either vote for her or to work for her campaign.
Why, you'd have to cancel out years and years and years and years and years of Democratic politics not to believe it.
Simon and Albuquerque, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, I'm glad to talk to you.
I've just become a big fan of yours recently.
I basically call because I pretty much agree with you on everything, and I actually stopped listening to a lot of these other people over the Depie Ports deal, but you were the only person that said basically what I felt in my gut too at the time.
But the thing that I don't agree with you on is that the rift in the Republican Party is somehow due to Bush, that he is a moderate and that they've gotten frustrated or don't want to contradict him.
I think that what the Republicans should have been doing is shooting to the right or aiming to the right of him rather than to the left.
And it seems like issue after issue falls in their laps.
They don't take advantage of it.
It's sort of what you were talking about, about not getting their agenda out.
And if they'd gone to the right of him the whole time, I mean, I think the media would have been a little easier on Bush.
I mean, he's still going to pumble him, but they would have said, well, geez, this guy is a moderate compared to his party.
And they still would have gotten their philosophy out, but they just seem like a bunch of divided Democrats.
Simon, let me step here and analyze this because I've got limited time here.
I think I can squeeze this in.
The basic point you're making is that the GOP drift away from conservatism, you don't think it's the fault of the president.
It's rather the fault of moderates in the party.
Look, if this is a chicken or egg question, which came first, what is it that's embolding the moderates?
What's emboldening the moderates is that the conservatives are frustrated.
And why are the conservatives frustrated?
It's because there is no elected conservative leadership, and they can't move to the right of Bush without being considered traitors and have the White House exact a whole lot of pain on them.
Plus, the whole notion of party loyalty would prohibit them from doing that as well.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
Continuing to make the complex understandable.
Il Rushbo from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to clarify something if somebody misunderstood.
Plan B, the pill that's being talked about here in the case of Dana L, is not RU486.
I think I misspoke about that the first time I mentioned this.
What Plan B does is cause an immediate period.
Plan B is just a large dose of hormones.
This causes an immediate period.
That's why it has to be used within 72 hours.
I don't know.
It just causes periods.
RU 486 is a steroid.
Remember, though, the point of this is Dana L was upset she couldn't get it over the counter because Bush conservative political policies prevent it from being made available over the counter.
Earth to Dana L. Didn't Congress just pass a law or the FDA, a regulation restricting the sale of some cold medicines over the counter?
You have to know, you don't need a prescription for them, but you have to go back to the pharmacist and they're behind his counter, or her counter, and you have to go and ask for it.
And there's a limit on how much that you can get in one place because of what, there's a drug.
Yeah, there's a drug in some of it that you, if people know what they're doing, can make crystal meth out of.
So, you know, it's not just Plan B that is not being made available over the counters.
A whole number of other medicines that used to be available over the counter, which aren't.
I know some of it doesn't make any sense.
It's typical of the regulatory agencies that get involved in these things.
What is, what is.
But the fact is that she forgot in her panic that Plan B is available at any Planned Parenthood store, which when you look at that, it obviates the need to write the column.
The purpose of, well, I couldn't get this over the counter.
I spent all this time calling pharmacists.
I couldn't get a prescription from a doctor.
I didn't want to hunt around.
I didn't want to call all these doctors I didn't know.
Yet she apparently did call all around trying to find a doctor to perform an abortion after the 72 hours had passed because that was hard too.
Planned Parenthood in both instances is your ticket.
If you need Plan B, Planned Parenthood.
If you missed Plan B and you need an abortion, Planned Parenthood.
PP.
Put it up there on the calendar.
I'm sure Planned Parenthood has these metallic stickers for your refrigerator.
Just go get one, put it up there so you never ever forget this great service offered.
Joseph in Trinidad, Colorado.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Nice to speak with you, Rush, faithful pupil of yours, age 12.
I just wanted to comment on this, Dana L. Anybody with a functioning brain can see that her claims of not being able to get the services are quite dubious.
And I just didn't want to point out, you know, an age-old tactic of left-wing several psychosis to you have your radio on, Joseph?
Yeah, let me turn it over.
Turn your radio down because our delay to protect us for when you cuss or others utter an obscenity that you're hearing yourself late and is confusing you.
Okay.
So I was going to say, you know, it's really common for what you think is she made it up.
You think you're doubting her honesty.
Is that it?
Yeah, that's my point.
You know, I believe something may have happened, but there's no sort of outside verification that something actually did happen.
You know, maybe she was pregnant.
Maybe she wasn't even, you know.
But, you know, most likely, I think, with this situation, is that she ended up getting an abortion and found some way that it could have easily been fun to find another way to criticize Bush and the administration.
In this case, I can understand why you would think that, but I think given the details in the column and so forth, I think it's probably true.
Regardless, it is just another opportunity to blame the Bush administration or blame conservatism for things.
And remember, this is a woman who, if you read the column, if you go read the whole thing, You will easily conclude that she failed to accept responsibility for her actions and just had blamed somebody for it.
And it actually turns out that if her memory were intact and if she were as informed on this as somebody you would think would be, she's a lawyer and writer, then it was just, it's her fault, her responsibility.
She's trying to pass the book.
Charlie in McKinney, Texas, you're next.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Yes, sir.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir, I do.
Okay, I listen to you regularly.
The program that you're talking about on the naturalization of the aliens that Al Gore was involved in was called Citizenship USA.
Yes, sir.
Read that in the article.
And I was a supervisory special agent at Dallas when that program was initiated.
And we were set to naturalize about 10,000.
We found over 1,000 with criminal histories.
And they had to be, of course, set up for denaturalization.
And all those cases were consolidated and sent to Charlotte, North Carolina.
They set up a special unit there to review all these cases.
And I think that process is still going on.
But I'm retired now, so I have a voice.
And so your staffer has my number, so you can call me if you have immigration questions.
Free.
Okay, well, I appreciate that, Charlie.
Thanks so much for your offer of assistance out there.
I really appreciate it.
Have you heard about what's going on with Wenho Lee?
This is a fascinating story.
Wenho Lee from the Los Alamos Nuclear Facility was falsely accused of spying for the ChiComs.
This was during the Clinton administration.
The Clinton administration leveled charges against him, prosecuted him.
The judge in the case offered an apology to Wen Hole.
He sent me his book.
Wenho Lee sent me his book.
And it starts out with that apology from the judge talking about what a serious miscarriage of justice was perpetrated against him by the United States government.
I don't know, it's unprecedented, but it's very rare.
And this judge was really pointed, and he leveled at the government for what they had done to Winhole Lee.
Well, Wenho Lee then went out and sued.
He sued newspaper organizations and television networks and the federal government.
A decision by five major news organizations to pay $750,000 to Wenho Lee because they were named in news stories as the target.
Well, they named him in news stories as the target of an espionage investigation is now prompting warnings that the unusual payment could embolden others aggrieved by government leaks and lead to more litigation involving the press.
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC, and the Associated Press announced on Friday that they had agreed to the settlement in order to end litigation brought by Wenho Lee.
Jane Kirtley, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in an interview, the implications of this are just staggering.
I think this is blood money that has been paid here.
As part of the settlement, the federal government also agreed to pay Wenho Lee $895,000 to cover his legal costs in pursuing the case.
Now, Jane Kirtley said the payment from the news outlets was troubling because none of the news organizations or journalists were named as defendants in his lawsuit, which accused the federal officials of violating a 1974 law, the Privacy Act.
The reporters were held in contempt in the case after they refused to identify their confidential sources for stories about Lee.
The justice of this escapes me, Ms. Kirtley said of the payment.
But it's the most creative way I've seen so far to do an end run around constitutional protections and get money anyway through this collateral attack.
She said the deal could encourage litigation and demands for payment in connection with mundane reports on hospital statements about those injured in crimes and accidents.
Now, this article's in the New York Sun today.
It's by Josh Gerstein.
And I have to tell you something, folks, the whole article sounds really panicky.
And with good reason, maybe the drive-bys will start thinking twice before using their newsprint and their airwaves to destroy the lives of people who were unjustly accused of things.
See, this is how in the past, I've always told you this.
If you're a journalism student, you want to rise to the top.
If you're a young journalist working at a little podunk paper, podunk TV station, go out and destroy somebody, and that's how you get noticed.
Because you are speaking truth to power, or whatever this cockeyed phrase is.
Remember Richard Jewell?
Totally destroyed in the media after the FBI went after him as a person of interest, even though they had no proof.
Man's life was ruined.
The media joyfully aided and abetted that.
Same with the Stephen Hantfield guy, the scientist accused of sending anthrax to various places in Washington.
Maybe they will learn how to report news at the drive-by.
I'm dreaming.
Why do I even say these things?
It'll never happen.
Now, this was the Clinton administration that leveled charges.
The sources that the drive-by media used in the 90s to go out and falsely accuse Winhole Lee came from the Clinton administration.
And so now the news organizations have had to pay.
Scooter Libby's request for media testimony and documents.
He's getting some, but not nearly all of what he wants.
The judge is being very protective of the media in that case.
But this is a godsend because it's about time that there was accountability since the drive-by media will not practice its own internal accountability.
And it has to since it has constitutional protection, First Amendment protection, free speech, blah, blah, all that, until McCain finds gold too.
And if the media screws McCain in the upcoming campaign, you watch.
He'll try to restrict him even more during campaigns because he's a vindictive guy.
If they turn on him, because he thinks that they are his base.
But I mean, this is a welcome sign.
When you read this whole story, you can just read the panic in Jane Kirtley's comments about, oh, no, what could this portend?
Well, it's about time the drive-by media got a little dose of what it does to people so they can find out what it's like.
They go out and systematically try to destroy somebody's reputation.
And anytime something is done along the lines of trying to hold them accountable or harm their reputation, they hold up their hand, you can't touch us.
We're journalists.
You know, they go out and you can do research anybody's past, find out what they did in high school, what they did in college, publish it in a big profile, go out and try to dig up the same kind of dirt about a journalist, let the journalists find out about it.
And you have a sheer panic on your hand.
Journalists, well, you can't do that.
I'm a journalist.
Well, I'm just the messenger.
No, you're more than a messenger.
You're an agent.
You're an agent with an agenda, and it's time you were exposed.
It's not a two-way street with them.
They want to be insulated from the same analysis and examination that they engage in with other people.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back.
And welcome back.
We have an audio soundbite.
A couple of them here, actually.
The first audio soundbite is from Dingy Harry on the Senate floor today.
What's the United States Senate going to debate this week?
A new energy policy?
No.
Will we debate the raging war in Iraq?
No.
Will we address our staggering national debt?
No.
Will we address the seriousness of global warming?
No.
Will we address the aging of America?
No.
Will we address America's education dilemma?
No.
What's that?
Will we address the rising crime statistics?
No.
Will we debate our country's trade imbalance?
No.
Will we debate stem cell research?
No.
But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage.
When do they debate any of that other stuff anyway?
What have they been debating and doing anything about other stuff anyway?
As I said earlier, folks, the fact that they're going to spend time on something that they think is wasteful is just time they can't do any harm.
Yesterday on Meet the Press, Joe Biden basically had the same line.
This is the Democrats' talking point response, I'm sure.
Russert said the president used his radio address yesterday and tomorrow in the Rose Guard to talk about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
What do you think of that, Senator Biden?
You know, think about this.
The world's going to Hades in a handbasket.
We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to avian flu.
We don't have enough vaccines.
We don't have enough police officers.
And we're going to debate the next three weeks, I'm told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else.
I can't believe the American people can't see through this.
We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, where we've all voted, not where I've voted and others said, look, marriage is between a man and a woman, and states must respect that.
Nobody's violated that law.
There's been no challenge to that law.
Why do we need a constitutional amendment?
Now, why are the Democrats so upset about this?
What is really?
If it doesn't have a chance, why are they so upset about it?
I'll tell you why they're upset about it.
It's because conservatism is back on the agenda and they lose.
They lose when conservatism is on the agenda.
When the Republican Party starts talking conservatism, starts acting conservative, they lose.
And Biden is wrong about this anyway.
Look at Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco, and look at the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, which made the legislature pass a same-sex marriage law, and they went against the Defense of Marriage Act at a subsequent time.
So he's simply wrong about it.
But, you know, the world's going to Hades in a handbasket, and we're desperately concerned about the circumstances relating to avian flu.
Again, the notion that these guys can stop any of these things he listed anyway is what he's sadly mistaken about.
Natalie in Aubrey, Texas, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to state a comment about the lawyer with the abortion problem.
As a woman and as a professional, I'm angered and disgusted.
This woman who's 43 cannot take responsibility for her own actions.
I'm 32.
I work two days.
I have three children, and I go to graduate school.
And I don't forget something as important as protecting myself and my family against quote-unquote mistakes.
It just really disgusts me that there are people like this out there.
Yeah, they get all self-righteous about it in the process.
It's Bush's Bush's problem, though, that she didn't use her diaphragm.
See?
What makes me even angrier, the fact that she's going to blame the president of the United States for her irresponsibility?
Give me a break.
Well, what do liberals do?
Do you live in a town where there's a liberal newspaper?
Oh, well, I go to Texas Woman's University in Benton.
I don't think you get much more liberal than that.
But, you know, honestly.
Well, then read the letters to the editor.
You will be stunned.
You don't even need to go to internet and go to a blog.
Read the letters to the editor of any major or minor American newspaper, and you will not believe it.
You will think that you are in the twilight zone every day with what these people and everything is Bush.
Everything that's wrong in the country is Bush.
It doesn't matter.
The crocodile problem in Florida is Bush's problem because he doesn't care about global warming.
It's hilarious and preposterous, preposterous at the same time.
It's a good thing we got a break here, folks, because I got to go.
Back in just a second.
Well, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellences in the can, ladies and gentlemen.
Show prep for the rest of the media has been done.
We'll be back tomorrow, do it all over, fully revved up.
▲
Export Selection