All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
October 10, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Say, Mike, I want to go back to Ted Turner.
It'd be audio soundbite 15.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, conversationalists, music lovers all across the fruited plane.
This, the Rush Limbaugh program, fun, frolic, and frivolity for all, as well as serious discussion of the issues.
This is a program exclusively tailored to rich Republicans, right-minded conservatives, and those who want to be both.
Or one or the other.
Others listen at your own risk.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, email address, rush at EIBDet.com.
Can you imagine how little Kim Jong-il feels over there when the United States says that his nuclear detonation was nothing but a bunch of TNT?
So what does he do?
He responds by saying, oh yeah, oh yeah, well, we're going to launch nuclear tip missile.
Little communist, worthless shred of human debris.
Ted Turner?
Well, he is.
Look at the way he treats people.
His own country is starving for crying out.
Here's Ted Turner.
I want to go back to this, say one more comment.
There are a lot of things about this war that disturbed me, and one of them is attitude that was well expressed by our president.
He said it very clearly.
He said, either you're with us or you're against us.
And I had a problem with that because I really hadn't made my mind up yet.
My country's wrong.
If we're torturing prisoners of war or murdering civilians, you know, that's not right, in my opinion.
Here's the sad thing about that, folks.
I mean, the real point about this is that when President Bush said you're either with us or against us, he was sending a message to foreigners.
It was assumed that all Americans were with us.
This was after 9-1-1, Ted!
It was not after we went into Iraq and all the Abu grab pictures surfaced.
It was after 9-11, and you say you couldn't, you hadn't made up your mind.
The president wasn't addressing his comments to Americans, nor did any American think that he other than you.
Now, this is a fascinating story to me.
The headline alone, school district teaches students to fight back.
With school defense in mind, the Burleson, maybe it's Burleson, I'm not sure which, Texas Skruel District is training students and teachers to fight back with everything from books to scissors.
Officials say that critical incident response training for teachers and students instructs them to disrupt attackers by barraging them with classroom supplies instead of just sitting there and getting shot so they don't offend anybody.
Dallas-Fort Worth TV station KTVT reports that about 600 teachers in the Burleson Independent Skruel District have been trained in response tactics.
The district recently received a $95,000 federal grant to continue the training.
Now, see, why is this even necessary?
We have to teach people to use their own innate instinctive protection urges.
Why is this?
Conflict resolution?
Why do we have to teach people how to fight back?
This has ugly portends, ladies and gentlemen.
Ugly.
I mean, if this is the case, if we have to teach people to fight, then is it any wonder we have so many wusses in this country?
Yes, Mr. Snertley, a question from the...
Well, I was going to get to that.
I was, that's my point.
Why does it cost $95,000 to train people to fight back?
What in the world is happening to us, ladies and gentlemen?
$95,000 grant before you can teach people to fight?
What kind of money does it take to teach a bunch of kids to fire a bunch of books and scissors at an assailant?
What are they being taught otherwise that makes this even necessary?
Our buddies at Newsmax back on September 12th, 2004.
Headline, Albright, North Korea cheated on Clinton-Nuke Agreement.
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted for the first time on Sunday that under the Clinton administration's agreed framework arms control treaty with North Korea, they cheated.
Asked point blank if North Korea developed a nuclear weapon during the Clinton administration, Albright told NBC's Meet the Press no.
What they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating.
The worst part that has happened under the agreed framework, she said, was that there were these fuel rods and the nuclear program was frozen.
But because of North Korea's cheating, she explained, those fuel rods have now been reprocessed as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons up to six to eight now.
We're not really clear.
Her comments came less than 24 hours after reports surface that Pyongyang had detonated what some said was its first above-ground nuclear test, though experts later said that the Mushroom Cloud explosion was a non-nuclear event.
In a February 2003 interview, Albright boasted to NBC, when we had the agreed framework, we did freeze those fuel rods.
And had we not in the last years, we would have somewhere people calculate 50 to 100 nuclear weapons.
A 1999 congressional study determined that Pyongyang was cheating on the agreement, but Albright disregarded the warning and continued to claim that the agreed framework was a success.
Of course, everything the Clinton administration did was a success.
So we had the path to 10-8, the path to October 8, and the nuclear test yesterday, not to mention the path to 9-11.
Also from Newsweek, Republican Senator John McCain said today, well, accused former President Clinton today, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
I would remind Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure, McCain said, at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.
The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance.
They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance that we gave them to their military.
Now, Democrats have argued President Clinton presented his successor with a framework for dealing with North Korea, and the Republicans fumbled the opportunity.
In October 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang to explore a missile deal with Kim Jong-il.
There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton.
McCain, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he backed tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea in response to this reported test.
The measures, he said, should include a military embargo, financial and trade sanctions.
Did we not call for this yesterday a blockade?
A military embargo, folks, is a blockade.
Some people would assume or take that as an act of war.
Also agrees that financial and trade sanctions are the right thing to do, plus the right to inspect all cargo in and out of North Korea.
I'm worried.
Senator McCain, echoing sentiments and ideas expressed on this very program yesterday and just point blank saying, and of course, the Libs love McCain.
Libs love McCain.
The press loves McCain.
Here he is ripping President Clinton for failure in his North Korea policy.
By the way, it's now official the New York Yankees will not fire Joe Torrey.
Joe Torrey will come back for the final year of his contract to manage the New York Yankees at $7 million a year.
You know, the Yankees kind of remind me of the Democrats, and the media that cover the Yankees remind me of the drive-by media that cover the Democrats in this sense.
Every season, the template, the prism through which Yankee baseball is covered is: they're going to win it all.
They're going to go to the World Series.
They got the best talent money can buy.
They've got the most expensive payroll.
They've got the biggest stars.
And it's only a matter of getting to October.
It's a fait accompli.
Now, the fawning Yankee sports media will really dump on them during the season if they lose here or there, and they'll dump on individual players.
But the whole city of New York, I know this.
I have lived there eight years.
There is this expectation that the world is not right if the Yankees don't win.
And that the season is irrelevant and should may as well not have even been played if the Yankees don't win.
And it's sort of like the drive-by media covering the Democrats today.
They're going to win the House and Senate every year.
And every four years, they're going to win the White House.
And if they don't, something wrong with the world order.
Something just out of whack.
Why, they've got the best talent.
Why, they've got the best people.
They've got the Ted Kennedys and the Chuck Schumer's and the Nancy Pelosi and the Harry Reid.
What is wrong?
Somebody's stealing these elections from them.
Somebody's out there screwing with the Democrats.
Now, the sports media in New York doesn't go that far when the Yankees lose.
They blame the Yankees.
They blame a few players on the Yankees, whereas the drive-by media will never, ever blame a Democrat for doing anything wrong.
But in terms of the sports media bubble in New York, if the Yankees don't, I mean, it's not this way for any other team there, by the way.
It's not this way for the Mets, not this way for the Giants.
In fact, it's just the ops for the Jets.
The football season is not normal unless the Jets finished in the cellar.
And when the Jets start doing well, there's something wrong.
Of course, the New York Islanders, that's the toughest cover in sports in terms of media.
They're out there on Long Island.
But the Rangers haven't done much lately since they last won the Stanley Cup.
The Giants, there is no expectation that the Giants have to win the Super Bowl of the football season is meaningless.
But when it comes to the Yankees in baseball, it's just like the drive-by media covering the Democratic Party nationally.
We'll be back after this state.
So essentially, the New York Yankees have rehired Howard Dean.
I love Joe Torrey.
I'm just trying to make an illustration.
Torrey's class guide.
I'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Other items in the news out there, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not good for the Democrat Party and the drive-by media.
This does not fit the template out there.
It's from USA Today.
Well, that's where I got it.
It's an AP story.
I got it late last night on my RSS browser out there.
Winter heating bills may not be delightful, but they will probably be lower, U.S. says.
Winter heating bills are expected to be slightly lower for most families across the nation, with the highest reductions for those who heat with natural gas.
Families using natural gas should expect to pay an average of $119 less this winter compared with last year.
That's a decrease of 13%, according to the Energy Department.
The department said that propane users can expect to pay an average of $15 less, less.
It's a mere drop of 1%.
Now, government and industry officials note that weather can always play a major factor in costs.
If parts of the nation experience an unusually cold winter, heating prices can jump.
So, well, they make this prediction, they say later on in the story, but we really don't know what we're talking about because the weather could change all of this.
I gather the prediction is based on lower fuel prices all over the world, but the weather could monkey with all that.
And then, of course, Caesar, pardon me, Hugo Chavez could ride to the rescue with more low cost, but he doesn't, I don't think he'll sell natural gas.
He'll sell oil, heating oil.
It may not matter anyway, ladies and gentlemen.
According to the Russian astronomer Nikolai Fedorovsky, a giant comet flying at tops.
This is from Pravda.
This is from Pravda.
Dated today.
Russian astronomer Nikolai Fedorovsky says a giant comet flying at top speed bound for Earth.
Should the comet stay on the collision course, it may hit the planet in late October.
The impact will cause devastating tsunamis, earthquakes, and avalanches, says the Russian astronomer Nikolai Fedorovsky.
He saw the killer comet in a telescope two weeks ago.
He managed to calculate its trajectory.
We got in touch with Feker Fedorovsky yesterday, says Pravda.
He said just a few people are aware of the fact that comets of various sizes fly past Earth at very close distance on a regular basis.
Those comets usually pass by unnoticed.
The above circumstance is not a guarantee against disaster by any means.
The Tunguska meteorite landed in the wilderness of Siberia.
What if it had plunged into the center of Europe or somewhere in the ocean?
I'm not trying to scare anybody.
I just want to warn the public, said Fedorovsky.
We should pay attention to this suspicious celestial body.
We can obtain more accurate calculations if other astronomers join forces.
We could also picture it, photograph it.
We're lucky we'll probably partake in one of the greatest events in the history of humankind.
Have you heard anything about this from anywhere else?
I haven't seen a report on it in Neuropsychotics, one of my favorite magazines.
Haven't seen anything about it in the journal Nature.
Well, another one of my favorite magazines.
I have a description there about the lapse, by the way.
Remind me to take care of that.
A giant comet, on the way, if where's Karl Rove been lately?
I mean, that would be one hell of an October surprise.
Ray in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Hello, Ray.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello.
Yes.
Yes.
Hey, Rush.
How are you?
Hi.
Just fine.
Ray, you know, there's something about Appleton, Wisconsin that most people don't know.
What's that?
That's where all the visiting teams that go in to play the Packers stay overnight before the game.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
I knew that.
They stay at the Paper Valley Motel.
And it's one of the best pregame meals in all the National Football League.
Well-known secret.
Rush, it's a pleasure to talk to you, sir.
Kim Jong-yo, he reminds me of a potbelly pig.
But the reason I'm calling is that I feel that our administration failed to react to Kim Jong-yo with his detonation of a nuclear bomb.
Well, because our government's saying they don't think it was nuclear.
They think it was a dud.
Okay.
Premature ejaculation.
Think of it that way.
Kind of a fart from across the way, huh?
Yeah.
I still feel that, you know, even with his missile that he launched Out to the Pacific.
We should have done something.
We should have made some type of a military.
We're in the process of devising a strategy to deal with this.
I think there are a lot of things on the table.
I just said McCain has essentially called for what we call for yesterday a naval blockade.
He's calling it a military embargo, inspection of all containers going in and out of there.
And basically isolating them.
The problem is that they've got China on their northern border, and China is not going to isolate.
North Korea wouldn't even be talking about nukes and have any possibility for nukes if it weren't for China and the Clinton administration.
I mean, that's the dirty little secret here.
And so what we have to do is work through China.
The solution to this problem is through China.
And that's going to require all kinds of tough talk with China.
What we could also want military, try arming the Japanese and the South Koreans with nuclear weapons.
Not to use them, but why in the world should we sit around and let this guy talk about his nukes and make Japan sit there as a continued pacifist nation according to the agreements of the terms of surrender after World War II?
Give them some offensive nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Same thing with the South.
There are a lot of things here that can be done and are on the drawing board.
Tom, in Cedar Falls, Iowa, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, Midwestern conservative dittos from a conservative who is breeding liberals out of existence.
Well, you're having some fun then.
How many kids?
I have four children, Rush, and they're all going to be conservatives if I have my way.
Okay, four children.
How old are they?
My oldest daughter is 13.
My two middlemen, I call them, Logan and Chase, are 11 and 7.
And my very youngest daughter, Bree, is 3.
Okay, so let's see.
Four kids, that probably took you a total of 10 to 12 minutes, not counting cigars or cigarettes in between.
Address my comment.
I listened to the comments from Ted Turner this morning, and I wondered if with liberals getting so emboldened enough, I guess, to make comments that are jaw-dropping to people who might be not so informed on Ted Turner is all about.
I wonder if as they get emboldened, do you think when they come out and say just idiotic things like that, Rush, I think that that will have a positive effect on the conservative voter who will.
I mean, that's one of the reasons we're airing it, but this is not new.
I mean, they've been emboldened.
I mean, what Turner said is romper room compared to what some Democrats have been saying this the last three years.
Back in just a second.
Okay, back to the audio soundbites.
Well, I want to go back to 1994.
President Clinton, early on, on the path to October 8th, Bill Clinton declared the North Korean problem solved, made this announcement October 18th, 1994.
This agreement will help to achieve a long-standing and vital American objective, an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.
And, of course, we see where we are.
Anyway, now, we'll go back and revisit how John Bolton explained to John Kerry that the Clinton policy failed.
Kerry, questioning Bolton during his hearings to be U.N. ambassador, asked a question with the assumption included that the Clinton policy was a huge success.
And Kerry says, are you prepared to go to bilateral talks, meaning just us and the North Koreans?
Quite the contrary.
We said expressly that what we wanted from North Korea was not simply a return to the six-party talks, but an implementation of the September 2005 joint statement from the six-party talks, which would mean their dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program.
This has been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.
It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.
Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done?
That's what the Clinton administration did.
Very poorly since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed.
And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks if North Korea would come back to them.
There's Kerry was just totally embarrassed and I don't even know if he knew it when it happened because these guys don't listen to answers.
Their questions are pre-prepared and written out for them.
I want you to hear this again since you now know what's coming.
Kerry says, well, why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done?
That's what the Clinton administration did.
Here's the whole bite again.
Quite the contrary.
We said expressly that what we wanted from North Korea was not simply a return to the six-party talks, but an implementation of the September 2005 joint statement from the six-party talks, which would mean their dismantlement of their nuclear weapons program.
It's been going on for five years, Mr. Ambassador.
It's the nature of multilateral negotiations, Senator.
Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done?
That's what the Clinton administration did.
Very poorly since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed.
And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks if North Korea would come back to them.
Very poorly.
Very poorly since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework the time it was signed, as all communist countries do.
Ed Koch.
I am not alone, ladies and gentlemen, in thinking the Republicans are not going to lose the House and the Senate.
Ed Koch doesn't either.
I am not alone in thinking that we need to go on offense here and stop living in the media bubble.
Last night on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox, the former New York City mayor appeared.
Cavuto says, you say it's a pretty good thing we have George Bush in office.
That's bold words for a Democrat.
Well, I have taken the position early on and supported that position by voting for President Bush's reelection because I believe he has the courage and the resoluteness necessary.
And that, regrettably, my party has been taken over by the McGovernites, the Kennedys, Howard Dean, others like them, and they do not have the willingness, the courage to stand up on this issue.
Cavuto then says, George McGovern said the nominee would almost have to be someone who at the very least regrets the vote for the Iraq war.
What do you think the message is on a North Korea if that's what the tide of the Democratic Party is?
I do not believe the Democrats will carry either house.
I believe that the base of the Republicans, which are the ecumenicals and the Christian right, that they don't care about anything other than the Supreme Court.
And they'll punish the Republicans in primaries, but they're going to come out in large numbers to support the president.
Do you think in as large numbers?
I believe so.
So there you have it.
A Democrat Ed Koch thinks the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress.
Are you all aware of the murder of the journalist in Russia?
President Vladimir Putin yesterday broke his silence over the murder of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
In a conversation with the U.S. President George W. Bush, Mr. Putin vowed that all necessary efforts will be made for an objective investigation into the tragic death.
The Russian president had been criticized for failing to condemn the murder, which sparked fury among Russia's liberal intelligentsia and brought hundreds of people onto Moscow's streets.
Politkovskaya was a crusading journalist to expose the horrors of conflict in Russia's breakaway southern region, Chechnya.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbor, added her voice to calls for the exhaustive investigation, saying Politkovskaya's death was a great loss, not just for her country, but for all who struggle for human rights around the world.
Editors at Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper where she worked, said they believe the pro-Moscow Chechen prime minister Ramzin Kedrov, whom Politskovskaya called a state bandit, could have been responsible for her murder.
Now, is there a lesson?
Mr. Snurgly, is there a lesson?
Journalist murdered, is there a lesson here?
Not one that you care to put your name to.
Well, tell me.
I'm not going to repeat it if you don't want me to repeat it.
What is your theory on this?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Here's the lesson.
The lesson is that the drive-by media forgets that they would be the first to be slaughtered if terrorists win.
They would be the first to go.
The press, any opposition, first to go in any kind of ascension to power of terrorists or any kind of totalitarians.
Communists.
Well, ex-communist KGB types, yes.
Journalists would be the first to go.
And they think they would be embraced and heralded by these.
Why else kill this woman?
She's exposing a bunch of stuff that the government doesn't want exposed.
And of course, drive-by media and the liberal intelligentsia, why?
If they'd only had more time and money, they might have actually been able to put together the people's paradise in the Soviet Union.
Bill in Chicago, you're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
I just want to bring you back to 94 again.
And Duke Gingrich and the House of Representatives had a party and they singled out one person for helping them win back in 94.
And that person was you.
And I think that, once again, offense and issues, I think it's time for you to call up Russert, Stephanopoulos, tell him to make time.
In the next couple of Sundays, that you'll come on.
You'll present the issues as we see them as conservative Republicans.
I think you've got to fire up EIB1, crisscross the country, and get the base stirred up.
And there's no doubt in my mind that we'll hold both the House and the Senate.
I'm really flattered, Bill, that you think I could do this.
Without a doubt, Rush, there's nobody in the United States that can draw a crowd like you.
The mainstream media, the drive-by media, they'd have to cover it.
Oh, don't be so fast.
They would cover it, but if two people show up to protest, that'd be the story.
Oh, Rush, anywhere you go, you draw a crowd.
Huge crowd.
Your influence is unbelievable.
And I think you're the nuclear weapon that the Republicans need now.
So bring it on, Rush.
You know, I really appreciate your saying this.
I'm sitting here pondering if that is my role, if that is my job.
Not the TV appearances, but you're talking about a barnstorming tour of personal appearances out there.
Exactly right, Rush.
And call up the RNC, ask them which house races they'd like you to visit.
See 30 days.
I really couldn't do it.
I can't do it.
I wouldn't.
I'm not going to go out as an official of the Republican Party.
I would never do it because I'm not.
And I never have been.
And I wouldn't do it under those auspices.
And I did not do it in 94.
That happened all on the radio.
And I did have a television show then.
Right.
I remember the party on C-SPAN.
And Duke Gingrich and the House of Representatives credited you with being the most important thing.
Yeah, they made me an honorary member to freshman class.
Yes, they did.
I saw the party that they drew for you.
It was great, and I think it's time for another party.
Well, that's awfully nice of you to say, sir.
I'm sitting here very flattered.
But I did not do a barnstorming tour.
And the problem with doing that, well, I don't want to construct negatives here, but I just couldn't do it with any kind of official tie to the RNC.
You know, and I go out maybe three times a year now and do these personal appearances for affiliate radio stations.
And the press doesn't cover it.
They ignore it.
I don't care how many 5,000, 10,000 people, they ignore it totally.
And yet, if some comedian shows up to do a little rant for 45 minutes, there's three weeks of pre-publicity and interviews and reviews of past performances and so forth.
So it doesn't get that much coverage.
Just looking at this in a realistic sense, it's great to go out there and talk to anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 people, but we're talking about reaching millions on the radio program every day.
This seems to be the more efficient way to do this.
My contribution to this election season, ladies and gentlemen, is to cut my vacation time before the election in half.
All right, time for today's installment in the chickification of the news.
The Disney movie 102 Dalmatians, you've seen that movie?
Cruella Deville, and she wants to kill the dogs to make a fur coat out of them.
According to two anti-smoking activists, the 102 Dalmatians movie from Disney should be R-rated instead of G. Not because of Cruella Deville, a demented woman bent on turning cute puppies into a fur coat.
Nope.
The reason they want an R rating on 102 Dalmatians is because Cruella Deville's real crime was smoking.
Movies that depict smoking are the single greatest media threat to children, not terrorists or nukes.
Cruella Deville smoking, say two prominent doctors.
ABC's Heather Nowart warned her Good Morning America audience.
Nowart's story today focused on two activists who call for the Motion Picture Association of America to automatically assign an R rating to movies with any smoking in it.
Yet in her story, Heather Nowart left out how biased her sources were, as well as failed to balance her story with any criticism of the doctor's claims.
Nowart noted that research found in 2004, 75% of all GPG and PG-13 films showed characters smoking.
She pointed to a study by Stanton Glance of the University of California, San Francisco and James Sargent, a pediatrician at Dartmouth.
Yet in citing the study's authors, Heather Nowert failed to inform viewers that Glance and Sargent are hardly dispassionate apolitical scientists.
In fact, they are celebrated by colleagues for their anti-tobacco activism.
In a fall 2001 faculty-focused feature for Dartmouth Medicine, Sargent was celebrated by Dartmouth Medical Scrule's assistant director of publications, Laura Stevenson Carter, as a medical researcher who digs into hot issues without regard for how much he may upset big corporations.
The chickification of the news, 102 Dalmatians or 101 Dalmatians, whatever it is, requires an R rating.
Now, there's not a single guy that would do that.
Well, I take it back.
There are a bunch of liberal wusses that would.
But, I mean, this is chickification of the news.
And, of course, who is it that produces all these movies with cool people looking cool by smoking?
Who is this doing this?
Hollywood leftists.
Is it not?
From Cairo, Egyptian authorities put a ban on idling vehicle engines in Saqqara, southwest of Cairo, after cracks started a show on the country's oldest pyramid.
The head of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquity, Zahi Hawass, has decided to ban the running of engines of all cars and buses waiting for tourists in the archaeological area of Saqqara.
The running of engines has caused the area to experience some shaking, which has in turn caused cracks in the pyramid.
He warned that anyone caught running a car engine would be charged with damaging archaeological sites and face legal action.
They don't, this is incredible.
They don't ban the rotten vehicles.
They don't ban driving them around.
They ban letting the engine run.
If idling engines in tourist vehicles can cause the pyramid to crack, there's something else going on here other than idling engines.
And before it's all said and done, it'll be global warming.
Joe in St. Louis, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
What an honor and a thrill.
Thank you.
I just heard a news report at the top of the last hour, the president's initiative to make our children safer in schools.
And the first thing that the liberal Democrats said upon, I guess, the president exiting his conference is, well, talk is great, but we need more than just talk.
We need action.
And duh, let's look at North Korea.
All they want is talk.
What hypocrisy, Rush.
Right.
We need to talk to the terrorists.
Ned Lamont with the official stance of the Democratic Party.
Ned Lament says that we need to talk to our enemies.
Only with dialogue can we solve our problems with our enemies.
Bush can't win.
Whatever he does, they're going to accuse him of not doing enough or doing too much, or they're going to say he's doing it exactly wrong.
I have, I don't know if you heard it, but we had a story out of Dallas earlier this hour where the federal government has granted $95,000 to a school district near Dallas to teach teachers how to teach kids to respond.
They're doing what?
Oh, they're showing video on fire.
Oh, oh, they're showing video of the class being taught how to respond to an assailant.
They're throwing books, they're throwing paper airplanes, and they're throwing scissors.
They've got some kid pretending to be the assailant holding a weapon and a shotgun in the hallway, and they have to $95,000 federal dollars to teach people how to respond.
Now, responding is a natural, instinctive thing.
It's called self-preservation.
What in the world have we taught kids that makes them sit on their duffs and just wait for it to happen?
You must not be provocative.
Sit there and don't make eye contact with the assailant.
Try to blend into your surroundings as though you don't even exist and wait for reason to assert itself.
When we're dealing with a lunatic with a gun.
Folks, this is serious stuff.
I mean, would this not explain a wave of idiotic pacifism all over this country?
You got to teach kids and teachers how to respond?
It costs $95,000 per school district to do it?
Hell's bells, it's worse than I thought.
A top al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan has said, Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House, urging his supporters to attack the White House.
Details tomorrow.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection