All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
June 27, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
By now, everybody waiting with bated breath.
Greetings, my friends.
It's great to be back.
Great to be with you.
The one and only Rush Limbaugh program on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your host, Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist, making all this look easy.
Don't try it at home.
This is a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Happy to have you along.
Phone number again, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We got an email just a moment ago in the break.
I read that Rush sounds like you had a really great vacation down there in the Dominican Republic these past four days.
Do you have any problem getting up for the show today?
No, no, no, no, not at all.
I mean, when that microphone goes, that microphone goes on, something just takes over for me.
I don't care.
I could be in the depths of depression.
I could be in the throes of misery.
I could just be flatlining it all over the place.
And he even be slumping.
But that microphone goes on and magic happens.
So, no, everything's cool.
I appreciate the concern.
We've been talking about the New York Times and the media.
And now, I know this is the story from last Saturday, but I wanted to mention it to you in context.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that protects, projects rather, sharp reductions in, and grab Audio Soundbite 11, by the way, for this.
Sharp reductions in the United States military presence in Iraq by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, according to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, General George Casey.
The number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease from five or six from the current level of 14 by December of 2007.
General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret.
And it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
So, I mean, you've got this.
This is a leak of classified data, troop movements in Iraq.
New York Times, a gun.
I mean, folks, they're a rogue agent.
In fact, I want to repeat something I did the first hour of the program because I think, you know, in fact, we ought to produce this.
We ought to produce this as a like a radio commercial that the New York Times would produce and buy time on this program to solicit subscribers.
Because you know, they're losing subscribers.
That little pinch, spending all kinds of money to build a new headquarters in New York, and it's affecting the bottom line.
Layoffs have taken place.
So the New York Times needs to rebuild its subscriber base.
So I want to, we'll do a little test market of my proposed idea.
I know that there are a lot of you terrorists out there in this audience.
We know that you're spying.
We know that you're out there listening to various media in this country, reading various media in order to figure out the scope of things in this country.
And I know that you don't have to be in this country as a terrorist or as an al-Qaeda member to be listening to this program.
You could be listening in a cave in Pakistan or anywhere via rushlimbaugh.com, my website.
So this is my idea of a New York Times commercial written specifically for jihadists and al-Qaeda members.
Is your terror cell living in terror?
Is your safe house not that safe?
If you're a terrorist, if you're al-Qaeda and your terror cell is living in terror and your safe house isn't that safe, you know the infidels are out to get you and they are using satanic means to track you down, infidels being us.
As we at the New York Times know, terrorists fight the honorable way, suicide bombs and beheadings and explosions that kill innocent people.
The infidels, the Americans, they fight dishonorably.
Eavesdropping, tracking, tracing, spying.
If you want your sleeper cell to sleep safely, read the New York Times.
And then we can get a quote from an Al-Qaeda member.
Yes, I saved it to my sleeper cell thanks to the New York Times.
Did you know your phone calls are traced, Al-Qaeda members?
The New York Times readers know that your calls are traced.
Did you know your money transfers are being intercepted if you are a jihadist?
The New York Times and its readers know this.
Yes, I rerouted my terror funds thanks to the New York Times.
Terrorists everywhere from Tora Bora to Tijuana read the New York Times every day because you'll find all the secret stuff that makes news meaningful to you.
News that you jihadists can use in the New York Times.
None of that positive news that would discourage you.
You will never be discouraged as a jihadist reading the New York Times.
They also featured daily attacks on the infidels by Maureen Aldaud and Paul Al-Krugman and Tom Al-Friedman, not to mention the entire front page of our newspaper, which is daily attacks on the infidels.
Subscribe today, Al-Qaeda members and jihadists.
We offer at the New York Times quantity discounts for large terror cells, educational discounts for madrasas and terrorist training camps.
Read the New York Times and your sleeper cell can sleep safely.
The New York Times, the Infidels, Jihad Journal.
Need to produce that.
I mean, I did pretty well just in giving you an idea, but that's a typical New York Times, or would be a typical New York Times commercial soliciting new subscribers based on the things they choose to publish.
So now Casey's troop movement.
They got hold of that somehow.
Somebody somewhere is leaking this stuff.
And of course, ladies and gentlemen, we're not allowed.
No.
No, the sources for all of it.
No, why, the New York Times can do whatever they want to keep that secret, and that's not arrogant.
Oh, no, because the secret identity of sources, why news, the media would be compromised.
We forever would not be able to do our job if people were not free to leak and blow whistles and so forth.
About the troop movements, Sunday on Slay the Nation, Bob Schieffer interviewing Barbara Boxer.
Bob Schieffer said, what can you tell me about this report coming out of Iraq this morning that in fact the U.S. is drawing up a timetable?
I would have to say that I'm not surprised that General Casey has put forward a timetable.
Yes, that's what it is, a timetable for reducing our forces.
It's, as I read it, about a three-year timetable.
It's too long for me, but we'll set that aside.
So now that means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable, really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress.
Now we learn that Mr. Malachy is asking us to leave, showing us the door, and on the way out, by the way, saying that he's going to grant amnesty to the people who hurt our troops, and we're going to have to pay compensation.
This thing is a mess.
It's a humiliation.
It's a mess.
All right, so here's the new liberal buzz phrase is, Casey proposed a timetable just like we did.
But he did no such thing.
Their timetable is for clearing out of there, folks.
Their timetable includes deploying troops to Okinawa and other such brilliant places.
And she revels in the idea that we have been humiliated because that's what she would like.
That's what the left loves, ladies and gentlemen, is when the United States is humiliated.
Our buddies at WorldNetDaily.com came up with something from their archives.
They published this about five days ago.
While Democrats bristle at Republican descriptions of their Iraq policy as cut and run, Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, also the author of a bill defeated last week in the Senate.
What did he get?
13 votes on cutting and running?
John Kerry used that very term to criticize President Bush's consideration during the 2004 election campaign of a timetable for withdrawal.
In a December 2003 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, John Kerry said he feared that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut and run strategy.
I'd forgotten that.
Democrats, John Kerry, Bush is going to cut and run 2004.
That's a secret plan to win the election.
Bush is going to cut and run.
Now it has become the mantra of the Democratic Party.
Quick timeouts.
Time flies on this program, so we will be back before you even know it.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Oh, look at this.
Now, this is from last Friday.
And I was still busy doing show prep last Friday, even though I wasn't anywhere near a radio studio, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, this is just comical, but I mean, it's, well, I don't know what it is.
Former Vice President Walter Mondahl said last Friday he supports a preemptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile, saying that the United States should tell North Korea to dismantle the missile or we're going to take it out.
Now, I happen to agree with him.
If they do ever launch that, baby, we have to take that thing out, sending a message to anybody else around the world as well to that little pot-bellied dog-eating dictator, Kim Jong-il.
Walter Mondal, who it says here was the 84 Democratic presidential nominee and a former U.S. ambassador to Japan.
I'd forgotten all that stuff.
I just knew he was the father of Eleanor Mondale, who made frequent visits to the Clinton White House, the Oval Office, and made Monica Lewinsky very jealous.
Nevertheless, Mondal said, I think it would end the nuclear long-range dreams of this dangerous country.
Tensions are over North Korea's apparent preparations to test fire a Tapadong 2 missile.
Where do these people come up with the names of these things?
The Tapadong 2, which is believed to have a range of up to 9,300 miles, that would make it capable of hitting much of the U.S. mainland.
So if a liberal recommends an act of war, I think it's okay.
Nobody says, wow, is he losing his mind?
Nobody's, he does this.
This is its AP.
Mondale backs preemptive missile strike.
I don't care whether he means it or not.
They're not shrieking with outrage over this.
I mean, I'm just telling you, liberals can, you know, they can recommend an act of war, shooting down a sovereign nation's missile.
And there's nobody that seems to have a problem with it.
This is Jeanette in St. Augustine in Florida as we go back to the phones.
Thanks for calling and thanks for waiting, Jeanette.
Oh, thank you.
Ditto is from St. Augustine, the ancient city and home of the first immigrants in the United States.
Yes, and the fountain of youth that never was.
Absolutely.
Although it tastes really bad, so it's got to be good for you.
Yeah, that's unfortunately the way things work today.
Scientifically led society.
Yes.
I got to tell you, after what I read from the New York Times on Friday, I was completely and totally outraged.
And I think that by publishing our nation's biggest security secrets for everybody to see is it's not only tantamount to treason, but it's absolutely criminal.
I mean, endangering obstruction of justice.
I mean, surely some attorney general somewhere can come up with 150 million things to charge them with.
I mean, Lord knows you get pulled over in your vehicle and you walk away with five tickets.
Surely we can come up with at least five charges for the journalists, the editor, the newspaper.
They might be able to find them.
I don't doubt that there are possible charges.
I'll just whether they have the desire to do it, to bring charges.
And Paul W. Smith had Attorney General Gonzalez on the program yesterday from what I am told.
I didn't hear it because I was flying back from the Dominican Republic.
What I'm told is that Gonzalez was not all that hip to it.
Not that that means anything.
He may not have wanted to give anything away.
They may be preparing a case right now.
I hope that's what's going on.
President in the bite.
Specter said what?
He doesn't.
All right.
Okay.
So Spectre and Gonzalez are both saying, eh, we don't know.
I hope that that's just to diffuse this as far as Times is concerned.
I hope they president audio that when he was asked this by a reporter was livid.
You can tell when he's mad about something and when he's taking things lightheartedly and he was really mad about this.
At some point you think that the tipping point with this administration has to be reached.
They know that they've got a shadow government in there.
They've got people undermining what they're trying to do.
And at some point, you think that they, okay, we've got to do something about this because this is what President Bush's primary foreign policy is all about, is the defense and protection of the country.
But again, it's going to come down to whether or not they want to be the administration to actually take action like this.
I know that the Nixon administration went after New York Times and the Pentagon papers.
This would be far different from that if they actually pursue it.
I appreciate the call, Jeanette Steve in Annandale, Virginia.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I was interested in the media reaction to Friday's event in Washington, which I luckily attended, implying that 24 was a show for conservatives.
And my sister is a liberals liberal.
She was the editor of a university paper post-Watergate.
And her finest moment still was standing there Jimmy Carter on election night in Plains, Georgia.
And she loves the show.
And it's really brought us closer together.
We have about 24 more long-distance conversations every year than we usually have.
So you were a little bit upset that the ABC portrayed this thing as a conservative show?
Well, yeah, based on her and her reaction to it.
And I called her Friday night to tell her w about the the event on Friday and she was really envious of me for the first time in her life I think.
I know I mentioned that you were the MC and she had that slicking on a lemon sound to her voice after that.
But she was really excited that I had gone and I told her it was a really great event.
But she loves the show and actually she thought that this past season show was clearly more for liberals with the evil president and the cabal of neocons behind him and so forth.
So that's the show too.
That's a very good observation on your part.
I'll tell you a little story.
If you were at the event on Friday, you heard me say this.
But I mean, I'll get to that in a second.
I just want to tell you that Cerno, the creator and exec producer, has publicly talked about all the people who love it and want to come by and watch a good film.
Barbara Streisand's in a group, and she certainly would fit the definition of a liberal.
But, you know, the DVD sales worldwide are through the roof on this show.
And one of the things that they find humorous, not only at Fox, which is the studio that actually produces the program, but also on the set at 24, is there are people all over the world who don't like America who love 24 because 24 shows Americans getting blown up.
It shows terrorists getting away with, or almost getting away with terrorist acts.
In some cases, they do.
And it does sometimes show bumbling Americans in the process of trying to deal with this.
So it does.
It has something for everybody.
And these guys that produce the show are smart that way.
This is not a conservative show.
They're not producing it for any one particular ideological demographic.
It's like Michael Jordan once said, you know, he's a Democrat, big Democrat.
And the people have tried to recruit him on political issues.
Say, well, we're not going to do that.
You know, Republicans buy Air Jordans, too.
You know, why go out there and anger half of the potential market?
It's the reason Tiger Woods doesn't get political.
His dad, before he passed away, said that Tiger was going to be one of these figures that would have a worldwide impact, that he would be thought of one day in the same league as Mandela and others.
It may be, but it won't be until after his career is over and his endorsement opportunities are either no longer necessary or maximized, because Tiger will have the same attitude about this, and so will his, well, for lack of a better word, agents, his representatives.
I've got to let him go out there and get involved in politics, political things, and just steam off half the market.
So in the scope of 24, there's something for everybody on this show.
I mean, if you've I get email from people who think that the show is a secret attack on conservatives because of the way they portrayed President Logan this year as a bumbling idiot, and because there's a Republican in the White House, they're just trying to make Bush look bad.
People take whatever they want from the program.
And these guys kind of marvel at it.
They're just, like I said, trying to do a good show and keep it on the air.
We've got to take a brief time out.
Thanks.
And we'll be right back with a whole lot more.
Turn it up, folks, at least 800 decibels.
Make sure you do not miss even one brilliant syllable uttered by me.
Emitting vocal vibrations, rhetoric in residence all across the fruited plain of Hudson, Florida, and Jill.
I'm glad you called.
Thank you very much for waiting, too.
I appreciate your patience.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
Rush, a few years ago, Valerie Plain was outed as a CIA agent.
Her outing did not in any way affect national security.
And yet the Left was apoplectic in their anger and their outrage.
They couldn't find enough adjectives to describe their anger.
And yet now, when the Times, you know, reveals information which will harm our security, the left, you know, is eerily silent and actually supportive of the times.
Well, why do you think that is, Jill?
I mean, you're very astute.
You're very observant.
Why do you think that is?
As you said, Russ, they're not on our side.
Well, they're clearly not on George W. Bush's side.
They're clearly not on the Republican side.
And that right now, since Bush is the only one seriously fighting a war on terror, makes them not on our side.
Very good.
Very, very good.
You are a well-qualified listener.
Well, I love listening to you, Rush.
Well, thank you very much.
You made my day.
I appreciate that.
By the way, where is Hudson, Florida, Jill?
We are near Tampa, but we're actually on the Gulf.
Yeah.
Well, Tampa.
I mean, Tampa's close to being on the Gulf.
North or south of Tampa.
We're northwest of Tampa.
Northwest of Tampa.
Yeah, that would make sense.
Northeast, you wouldn't be on the Gulf.
We're north of Clearwater.
We're actually closer, perhaps, to Clearwater, if you've ever heard of that.
Yeah.
But we're on the water.
So we're on the opposite side of where you live.
Well, I appreciate that.
I didn't know.
There's so many little towns over there.
There's so much going on in Tampa.
It's amazing what goes on over there.
It seems like more stuff out of Tampa's in the news, particularly with weather, than you can shake a stick at.
But nevertheless, just a little side observation.
Glad you called.
Thanks so much, Jill.
I have to help you, Russ.
Bye.
Bye.
This is Babette.
Babette in Damascus, Ohio.
Hi, Babette.
Hi, Rush.
How are you today?
Good, thank you.
Good.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Appreciate that.
I called because I need some help from you.
I have a 13-year-old grandson who's in the seventh grade, and his class was asked to do a project about themselves, what they wanted to be when they grew up, that sort of thing.
In this project, my grandson said he wants to be a Marine.
The teacher gave him all good comments on his report, except this, and I'm reading directly from the paper she gave him.
Our Marines just slaughtered little children in Iraq as revenge, too sad, and she has a little face with a turned-up mouth on it.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
The teacher put that on the paper?
Yes, she did.
After she graded it.
Yes, she did.
And what do I say to her?
Really, I think I just have such strong feelings, I don't know where to start.
All right.
The most important thing is what you're going to say to your 13-year-old grandson.
What did you say to him?
Well, he understands he comes from a family that stay very well informed about things in the world, and he disagrees totally with the teacher.
So he's on the right track.
But I'd like to respond to this teacher.
And this is not the only teacher in this local school who's made extremely liberal remarks.
And, you know, our family believes that teachers should not be giving bias one way or another.
But I'd like to respond to her, and I certainly need your help.
Do you want to go see her personally, or do you want to write her a letter?
I'd like to write her a letter.
I would write a letter that's very reserved.
And when she reads it, she does not get it.
Any idea that you are hysterically mad or outrageously so.
It needs to be well-tempered, and you just need to tell her how ashamed you are of her, how she has disappointed you in your thoughts on her profession.
I try to make her about three feet tall, three inches tall, talking to her as though you're an adult to a child.
Okay.
And I would, you know, don't threaten going to the supervisor.
Don't threaten going to the principal or the school board or any of that.
Save that if her reply is, if she replies, and if her reply is sufficiently not responsive, disrespectful, or whatever, then you can take that.
You get one, if you feel the need to a higher authority in the school.
But I just shame her.
I would just talk about how you're just so disappointed.
Talk about your grandson, how much he loves the Marines, how much that is his objective in life is to be the best Marine that he can be.
And it's not her job as a teacher to destroy his dreams.
Okay.
Especially, and use that phrase, it's not her job to destroy his dreams or any other student's dreams, especially with accusations that are not yet substantiated by fact.
Okay.
Yes, I'm making notes as you speak.
And I certainly agree with you.
I was going to do a very tempered letter, but I wanted to be sure that I made my point strongly enough.
You'll make it strongly enough.
Just focus on, you know, dear what's your face?
My grandson is such-and-such, attends your class, finds the class very enjoyable, very worthwhile.
But I am extremely disappointed because you apparently have sought to destroy his dreams.
Okay.
Whether you know it or not.
And then describe your grandson.
Apparently he's a good student.
He's got a good grade on this.
Yes, he is a great student.
And all of her other comments were very positive.
All right.
All right.
So you're not defending a rabble-rouser.
You're not defending somebody who gets himself in trouble.
No, that's absolutely true.
Okay.
So, you know, describe him, how much he wants to do this, and then how happy he was to be graded so well, and then how disappointed, whatever word you want to use, destroyed, disappointed, saddened he was to see your immature infantile response that is beneath the dignity of someone teaching 13-year-olds.
Okay, that sounds wonderful to me.
I really appreciate your help.
You bet.
Happy to be of service.
Thank you very much.
All right, Babbette.
Mike in Munachi, New Jersey.
I drive into Munachi, New Jersey every time I go to the airport.
Well, not every time, three or four times, but I know where he is.
Welcome.
Look at your dude.
I live right next door to the airport.
Hell, that's why I drive through Munachi.
To get to Giant Stadium, right?
Right.
Which is right down the block.
That's right.
A question concerning the New York Times.
And I'm not a great lover of the New York Times.
I'll state that.
But isn't the greater criminal here the people that are leaking these things to the New York Times?
And I have never heard, I've heard from one person that we should go after these people.
And that was, I think, Senator John Kyle on one of the talk shows last night on Fox News.
No, you're right.
They should not be overlooked.
The leakers should not be overlooked.
And in fact, you're going to ask a question.
I mean, this is a question I have.
Our administration, this administration is using various techniques that we now know about to track down terrorist movements, terrorist financial movements, a number of other things.
That's tough enough.
We can't find the leakers.
In our own government, we can't find who these leakers are.
Then there must have been a great change in the government.
I was in the Air Force for 20 years, worked on classified programs.
And one of the things you were desperately afraid of was doing something to leak classified information.
But now it doesn't seem to be concerned about leaking classified information.
No, because in this case, you're leaking to the New York Times.
You're going to be protected.
You're going to be considered a hero.
You'll have to suffer through your hero status in anonymity, but you still will be one.
And not only do you need to find the leakers, you need to find their motivation.
And that is key to this.
Now, I have my theories.
It would be probably well advised not to announce theories here, but there's something really strange.
I keep referring to the fact that there seems no question about it, that there's a shadow government, meaning all these different government agencies, State Department, CIA, Pentagon, over the past four or five years have all been leaking like sieves to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times about Iraq and the war on terror.
I don't disagree with that.
My question is, there's very little information out or being said about trying to find these people.
Well, whether that's because it's being done undercover or not being exposed, but it just is frustrating that we don't hear anything about the fact that we're going after the people that are really breaking the law.
One way to do that is to bring the New York Times in and finally put to a constitutional test the just how far does the right of a New York Times or any media outlet have to protect its sources.
That was my next question.
Well, that needs to be tested because it seems to be something everybody's relying on and falling back on here is that it's untouchable.
And if the Times won't tell anybody, put them in jail.
I guarantee you, there are court cases out there, lower court decisions, that say, maybe even Supreme Court or two, that the American media does not have a right to protect its sources above and beyond what individuals.
I mean, if you're in an individual law problem, legal problem, and you've got co-conspirators, you can't say, I have the right to protect my sources.
You've got to give them up or you're in big trouble.
Newspapers and media want exemption from all that because they claim it falls under their First Amendment protections under the freedom of the press clause.
In cases like this, shouldn't our government really be doing more to pursue things like that, which I don't hear much about.
Well, I don't know that you would hear about it.
Okay, that was my kind of thought.
But I mean, look at, do you remember the name Mary McCarthy?
Uh...
Vaguely.
Well, she was leaking Dana Priest, ostensibly, I mean, some people are denying this, but she was number two in the Inspector General's office of the CIA, former Clinton administration.
Right, okay.
And she leaked the story to Dana Priest.
I even forgot, but Dana Priest got a Pulitzer for this.
And Porter Goss went in there, and she was fired.
So now he's gone.
He lost a power play of some kind, ostensibly to Negro Ponte.
But I think in the CIA anyway, Goss was trying to clean it up.
You would have thinked that Condoleezza Rice and others at the State Department would be trying to do the same thing, but I don't think we would know about it.
Yeah.
One last general impression.
Yeah.
Between leakers and whistleblowers.
Don't you find it interesting that whistleblowers, when they blow the whistle, are usually chastised and their careers are ruined, but leakers are protected?
Well, I think in this climate today, it's a distinction without a difference.
I think whistleblowers are considered leakers.
And the difference is a whistleblower is known, a leaker isn't.
But whistleblower, look at Colleen Rowley, cover of Time magazine, whistleblower FBI 9-11.
I think with a Republican in office, a whistleblower in the government or a leaker, either one, is going to be hoisted up and will achieve hero status.
I have to run because I'm out of time here, but I appreciate the call.
Great questions.
And we'll be back and continue right after this.
Bouncing off this call we got from Babette in Damascus, Ohio about the silly little comment on her 13-year-old grandson's paper.
A story from USA Today.
More schools ban games at recess.
Some traditional childhood games are disappearing from screw playgrounds because educators say they're dangerous.
Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Spokane, Washington have banned tag at recess this year.
Others, including a suburban Charleston, South Carolina screwl, dumped contact sports such as soccer and touch football.
Other cities, including Wichita, San Jose, California, Beaverton, Oregon, Rancho, Santa Fe, California screws took similar actions earlier.
Now, these bans were passed in the name of safety, but some children's health advocates say that limiting exercise and free play can inhibit a child's development.
Groups such as the National Screw Boards Association don't keep statistics on these kinds of school games.
Dodgeball's been out at some screws for years, but banning games like tag and soccer is a newer development.
Yeah, it's happening more and more, said Donna Thompson.
She's of the National Program for Playground Safety.
We've got a bureaucracy for that.
We have a special interest group for that, the National Program for Playgrounds.
Do you people not have more to do in your life?
Can you not get serious jobs?
Can you not go out there and find, you have to go up and form a group to tell schools and parents how to run the playgrounds because you can't go out and find legitimate work yourselves?
Educators said, said Donna Thompson, educators worry about kids running into one another and getting hurt, quote unquote.
Kids worry about, or educators worry about kids running into one another.
Contact sports were banned from recess at Charles Pinckney Elementary earlier this year, says Charleston County Schools spokesbay Mary Geralt, because children suffered broken arms and dislocated fingers playing touch football and soccer.
Joe Frost, emeritus professor of early childhood education, University of Texas at Austin, sees playground restrictions as harmful.
He says, you're taking away the physical development of the children.
Having time for play is essential for children to keep their weight under control.
I swear, folks, these educators are allowed to decide how often a kid goes to the bathroom, how they, I mean, pretty soon they're going to be regulating bathroom behavior so they don't sprain their wrists in there.
I mean, and half of these people recommending these things aren't even educators.
They're just special interest groups from the National Program for Playground Safety.
Thank God these little worry warts were not around when I we played tag, played dodgeball, played, played, we didn't play soccer football because that was for pansies back then.
Soccer, we played touch football, we played dodgeball, played throwball.
You know, you play with a baseball, but you don't hit anything.
You stand up there to play with the one, you throw it and try to get a quote unquote hit.
And that was before school started.
Getting there before school started to play throwball was a hoot.
Now can't this too dangerous?
Yes, dislocated fingers are possible.
I'm not even going to tell you what happened when it snowed and they let us out at recess in the afternoon.
Here came the sleds, so forth going down the hills at school.
This is in the fifth and sixth grade.
Right out there near the street.
I was even a patrol boy.
You know what a patrol boy was?
I don't think they have any.
They have adults out there doing it.
Now, patrol boy, you man a street corner before and after school, and here come your little classmates.
Time to cross the street.
Patrol boy checks traffic both ways, has his little pole, a yellow pole with a red flag, a little yellow vest and so forth, helmet.
You walk out there.
Rain, sleet, snow, didn't matter.
The patrol boys were always there because it was a way out of school.
So you walk out in the middle of the street, you hold that flag out there, and the little kids cross.
And it was kids protecting kids.
Couldn't have that happen today because kids don't know.
And it was, I don't know how educational it was, but it gave a sense of power.
We could stop traffic.
These stupid little poles and red flags.
Sometimes, if we recognize the driver of the car and thought it was a creep, we'd stand there long after the kids had crossed the street.
What are they going to do?
Run us down?
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hey, Babbett from Damascus, Ohio.
Don't have time to take this call, but a caller's got a great idea to put in your letter to the teacher about your 13-year-old grandson.
Tell the teacher in the letter that your grandson wanted to be a teacher before he wanted to be a Marine, but with all the news about teachers raping kids and having inappropriate sexual contact with them, he thought it became a dishonorable profession and wanted to choose something far more honorable.
So he chose the United States Marine Corps.
Have a wonderful day, folks.
▲
Export Selection