Rush Limbaugh Program - December 1, 2006, Friday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:35

December 1, 2006, Friday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	There is so much good news out there today, folks.
	I can barely contain myself.
	So let's get started.
	It is Friday.
	Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
	It's open line Friday.
	And let's rev it up, folks.
	Open line Friday, one of a kind program on the one day of the week that we do it.
	Essentially, when we go to the phones, the program is yours.
	They can talk about anything you want to talk about.
	You can ask any question you want to ask.
	We are not bound by the same screener rules that apply here Monday through Thursday, which basically are if I don't care about it, we don't talk about it.
	But on Friday, I don't care.
	If I couldn't care less, you still can bring it up.
	Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
	Now, if you um if you've seen any news today, you might have seen this headline.
	It's in the uh the Washington Times.
	It's uh it's also on other sites.
	Democrats to offer permanent tax cut.
	And you look at it and you scratch your head and say, Whoa, Democrats to offer permanent tax cut.
	Now your instincts would say that's that that's not possible.
	There's there's got to be a catch to this.
	And if those are your instincts, then you are exactly right.
	Democrats have long attacked President Bush for the historic tax cuts he ushered through Congress during his first term, and they've promised to reverse at least some of them.
	In fact, Charlie Rangles is going to reverse all of them.
	There's not one of them that he finds worthwhile in keeping.
	However, among the Democrats' top priorities.
	Oh, did you see that uh Pelosi Pelosi named a new intelligence chairman, Intelligence Committee Chairman, some former border patrol uh guy?
	What's his name?
	Reyes.
	Is that what you say?
	R. E. What?
	Sylvester Reyes.
	Yeah, Sylvester, uh there it is, Sylvester Reyes.
	To head up the intelligence panel.
	Jane Harman's gone, Alcy Hastings.
	It's a shame he didn't get the gig.
	I was so looking forward to that.
	Anyway, this guy's a former border control, uh, border control official, so uh anyway, that that's that's one big uh uh breathless anticipation moment that has now passed.
	Anyway, in the in their 6 for 06 platform that the Democrats say help them win majorities in the House and Senate, which of course it didn't because nobody knew what the 6 for 06 platform was.
	One of the planks of the 6 and 06 was to make uh college tuition deductible from taxes permanently.
	Now, this is called a tax cut.
	Uh now let me tell you what this really is.
	What this is is a scam, ladies and gentlemen.
	It is an invitation for colleges to raise tuition.
	As we know, many of the institutions of higher learning out there are uh are are popularized by leftists on the faculty, uh leftists uh in the president's office, and this is a giant little scheme.
	It's it's designed to make people oh, wow, the Democrats, why they really care about education.
	This is so great.
	Look at what they're doing.
	They care about people.
	And uh so you're gonna be able to deduct fully uh uh your your uh college tuition permanently.
	Now, the college executives will applaud this, say, okay, this week and raise tuition.
	If people get to deduct it, why this will give us a way to raise two, and that's exactly what's going to happen.
	Um, everybody complains about Walmart, everybody complains about other prices going up.
	You notice the left never ever complains about how much it costs to go to college.
	And the reason is there's a symbiotic relationship.
	The left controls these institutions of higher learning.
	It's where indoctrination takes place, as you all well know.
	But the little trick here, aside from the obvious, is that in order to deduct it, you have to have it to spend.
	Now, you could go out and borrow it and so forth, but you're still going to be paying the interest on whatever you borrow to pay the tuition for your young crumb crunchers to head out to the neighborhood institution of higher learning.
	So even though...
	it's like write-offs, everybody gets mad at big bidness for having all these write-offs.
	You have to have the money to lose in order to write it off.
	Same thing here.
	If you're going to deduct your college tuition, you still have to have the money to pay.
	So the prices to send your crumb crunchers are going to skyrocket here on the basis of this tax cut being made permanent.
	Mark my words.
	You may not agree with me.
	Some of you always doubt me.
	Uh, and later on call and apologize when you realize that I was right.
	Brian, did you make that phone call yet?
	You haven't you didn't get the message.
	I put such an inside.
	Well, all right.
	I'll I'll I'll resend the message of the next commercial break.
	Ladies and gentlemen, a follow-up story uh from yesterday.
	Uh the uh the killer whale Kasatka was back in the water for a lunchtime performance that went off without a hitch.
	The uh show was limited to tricks that did not involve trainers getting in the water.
	This story from yesterday's, you know, Kosatka, the 30-year-old female killer whale, turned on her trainer, dragged the trainer to the bottom of the pool twice for less than a minute each time, uh, rather than perform the trick, which was to deliver the trainer on her nose.
	Uh the trainer could dive off and get out of the tank.
	It didn't happen.
	Uh young skulls full of mush and crumb crunchers watch this in horror and shock, as they've been led to believe that these giant creatures are just big pets uh that live at SeaWorld and they get to go see them.
	They don't understand that they're beasts and wild animals that have instincts.
	Anyway, uh the explanation for what happened, uh, and I had it for you yesterday.
	I think the whale finally just said, I'm tired of 30 years of this crap.
	I'm tired of doing this.
	They do this five times a day.
	I don't care who you are, five times a day of the same thing for what, 25 years.
	How long has this whale been performing?
	She's 30 years old.
	At some point it would have to get old.
	We have audio sound bites on this, uh, starting with Good Morning America Today, their correspondent Heather Nauert uh reported on wild animal behavior and attacks.
	This is a montage of her remarks.
	The incident at SeaWorld has a lot of folks wondering whether this was a malicious attack or whether this whale was just playing around.
	As we've seen so many times before, animal behavior is hard to read and hard to predict.
	The results can often be terrifying.
	Stop the tape a minute.
	You know, predicting animal behavior is becoming as big a challenge as predicting uh the weather and uh global warming, and the funny thing is that there are people out there who actually make the assumption they can predict uh animal behavior.
	Here is the rest of Ms. Nowart's re uh report.
	Say this kind of aggressive behavior by wild animals is not unusual.
	Really?
	Still, some humans believe they can safely live among the beasts.
	And with wild animals, no one really knows what they're trying to communicate.
	They could be hungry, they could be trying to protect their turf, or they could just be having a bad day.
	And there you have it, for they could have just been having the poor whale could have just been having a bad day.
	Do you notice the tone of no of these kinds of reports in the drive-by media?
	It's like we're all five years old.
	We're all six years old, and I, you know, snowstorm in the Midwest, and I guarantee you the local TV stations had reporters out there telling people, you know, it's snowing out here, and it's very icy out here, and you'd better drive carefully.
	It's like everybody is a child.
	Everybody watching is, and from the last election results, we may be able to assume that's the case.
	The story from the Associated Press here, some days killer whales just wake up on the wrong side of the pool is the way the story begins.
	Two and a half ton orca that dragged a trainer underwater during a show at SeaWorld may have been may have been angry by a spat with another whale, grumpy because of the weather, or just irritable from a stomach ache, according to marine mammal experts.
	Some mornings they they just wake up not as willing to do the show as others.
	Said uh Ken Balcom, director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington.
	If the trainer doesn't recognize it's not a good day, this'll happen.
	Meanwhile, experts from uh other Sea Well Parks and Marine Centers converged in San Diego to review Wednesday's incident and figure out what set the whale off.
	They actually flew in from all over the country to study this incident to figure out what set the whale off.
	The trainer who was injured underwent surgery yesterday and a broken bone on his foot was otherwise was in good spirits.
	Now, the trainer tried to calm the animal by stroking its back, but that didn't work.
	It grabbed him and plunged down again, uh, causing the injury.
	Now it says here that killer whales are predators that were originally called whale killers because they occasionally eat other whales and dolphins.
	In the wild, they're not dangerous to humans, and there's no incidence of them attacking humans unprovoked.
	They're dangerous because they're big and sometimes they're not happy with their uh situation.
	I can you blame this whale for being unhappy with its situation?
	A whale lives in an ocean.
	I don't know how big the tanks that these things live in, but it can't be very large compared to their natural habitat.
	Thirty years of performing tricks for a bunch of idiot gawking human beings.
	Remember, the whales are smarter than we are, folks, and we would know this if we could just communicate with them.
	One more sound bite here, and this is uh Good Morning America again, and the correspondent Heather Nauert interviewed uh Jack Hannah and Larry Kilmar of the San Diego Zoo.
	We can't predict human nature, much less animal nature.
	Wild animals are like a loaded gun.
	They can go off at any time.
	Wild animals should not be considered as pets, should not be looked at as pets, they should be looked at as wild animals and leave it at that.
	They're born with instincts that we can only modify through training.
	We always consider them wild.
	It's obvious we haven't developed the same sensitivity and the same compassion in dealing with whales in their bad days as we have in dealing with our own bad days as human beings.
	Why has nobody suggested Prozac?
	I mean, they'll eliminate the bad day from the whale's possibility.
	Uh not Prozac, if Prozac doesn't work, uh Ritalin.
	We use it on our own uh human beings, uh children to calm them down when we don't want to put up with their hyperkinetic energy.
	Why not try this with whales?
	After all, they're just human.
	Back in just a second.
	Stay with them.
	And we're back open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
	Serving humanity with half my brain tied behind my back.
	Just to make it fair, here is yet another story.
	The first such story as I am holding here in my uh formerly nicotine stick fingers happened about a week after the election.
	It's also in the New York Times.
	Idea of rapid withdrawal from Iraq seems to fade.
	Do you know you can go nuts?
	If you spend your time watching the drive-by media, you think you know everything is going to happen with the Iraq Study Group report.
	That thing's being leaked in so many places in ways that it's impossible to keep up with what it actually says.
	In fact, the Iraq study group is irrelevant anyway, because the president doesn't automatically implement what they suggest.
	Uh the president is still the factor here in the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and this Iraq study group is simply is whoever's on their staff, whoever's doing this, leaking all these different things, trying to foment enough public uh opinion on this via the drive-by media to force the president to take these recommendations and suggestions.
	Uh, and I don't even know if half these leaks are true.
	We won't know until the sixth uh when the thing comes out.
	But despite the, so you got the Iraq study group, we gotta get out of there in two thousand seven.
	Another leak says the Iraq study group's gonna recommend we be totally out of there by two thousand eight.
	And yet, in the New York Times today, where many of these leaks from the Iraq study group are showing up, is this.
	In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear.
	Despite the Democrats' victory this month in an election viewed as a referendum on the wall, the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.
	The Joint Chiefs of Staff, or as Rita X once said, the chief staffs of joint are signaling that too rapid an American pull out would open the way to all out civil war, despite the fact NBC News has already proclaimed that there is a civil war.
	The bipartisan Iraq study group has shied away from recommending explicit timelines in favor of a vaguely timed pullback, and yet some leaks say no, they're nothing vague about what they're suggesting.
	They're suggesting it come out of there In 2008.
	The report that the panel will deliver to President Bush next week would at a minimum leave a force of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to come to train the Iraqis and to ensure against this is all this old boulder dash.
	Leading up to the election, we were told by the Democrats, we're going to get out of there.
	Jack Mertha, we're going to cut and run, and this is the basis, one of the bases on which the Democrats claim they won the election.
	And they had military experts like Admiral Zinney and Major General Batiste and others out there.
	Oh, yeah, we got to get out of there.
	It's a lost cause.
	Why, it's a humiliating defeat already.
	Why?
	It's not worth it.
	There was no reason to go in there.
	Halliburton, oil, whatever.
	There was no reason to go in there.
	Place is in worse shape now than it was before we got there.
	Abu Grab's just as bad as just under new management, said Ted Kennedy.
	All of this was said.
	It's a horrible disaster.
	Now, after the election, this is the second time in the New York Times idea of rapid withdrawal from Iraq seems to fade.
	You know, there are also some Republicans that need to eat little crow over this one.
	Because they joined the cacophony of people saying we need to get out of their gutless wonders that they were.
	And now you have uh it's amazing the lack of backbone that some Republicans displayed in this election, particularly over the uh situation in Iraq.
	The story's a very long story.
	I'm not going to go through the whole thing.
	Uh it's largely of what the Baker group is going to recommend and seems to be arguing against their recommendations.
	Uh the idea of rapid withdrawal from Iraq seems to fade.
	And by the way, can I ask a question?
	Uh, ladies and gentlemen, just a uh uh it's a civics question.
	It's uh it's a political question.
	Uh who does the Constitution designate as the commander in chief?
	Uh President of the United States.
	So what does it matter who won the House and who won the Senate when it comes to the war in Iraq?
	Just because the Democrats won the war in Iraq, does that automatically mean that the president ceases to exist in any shape, manner, or form, and the Democrats get to call the shots.
	The only way that Democrat control of the Congress could have any effect on this is if they cut off funding.
	And I don't see any move by any Democrat to actually do that.
	And that's the dirty little secret.
	Wrangell said, well, we could cut off the funds for it.
	Yeah, but you'd still have to have overcome a presidential veto, and there aren't the votes anywhere in the House or Senate to overcome a presidential veto of cutting off the funds for Iraq.
	So this notion that the Democrats, and it's a notion that was put forth by the drive-by media and the Democrats themselves.
	I mean, this notion that just because they won the House and Senate, that before Christmas the troops are coming home, I never understood why people bought that, other than people's stupidity and not understanding the Constitution and not uh not having a decent education.
	More and more people starting to rev up the rumble that Hillary Clinton ain't gonna run for the White House, ladies and gentlemen.
	I have a number of stories here today.
	First in the New York Post, Iowa Democrats say there's a growing feeling in uh in Iowa that Hillary Rodham Rodham is going to take a pass on the presidency if rising rival Barack Obama jumps in.
	And by the way, you should know, and you should get ready for this, the Barack Obama is being uh more and more often compared to Bobby Kennedy.
	And uh, in the in the sense that Bobby Kennedy had a positive vision of the future.
	He was a hopeful guy, and uh there is a lot of mythology surrounding Bobby Kennedy.
	Uh and the movie, by the way, that movie that's out, Bobby, is not doing well.
	I mean, it bombed its first weekend to box office, had all these big stars in it.
	It didn't do uh didn't do well at all.
	But anyway, Barack Obama is being uh is being compared to Bobby Kennedy.
	Uh he's raising his profile with national TV appearances and an upcoming trip to New Hampshire.
	While Senator Clinton has been holed up at her home in Chappaqua and has not appeared in public in over two weeks.
	There was no sign of life at her house yesterday in Chappaqua, and Secret Service agents at the Westchester County property wouldn't say whether she was there.
	Now she's been out of sight for two weeks.
	Strangely, uh ladies and gentlemen, Nancy Pelosi was out of sight for two or three weeks prior to the election.
	Remember, we were they had his amber alert out for her.
	Where was Nancy?
	Mrs. Clinton has just now been discovered to not be around.
	Nobody knows where she is.
	Doesn't appear the home is being occupied.
	Maybe she's out getting some work done like Pelosi did.
	I mean, who knows?
	But the uh the vibrations here, the vibes are that she's not going to run, that she might not have a chance at winning uh the primaries.
	Uh in the uh New York, I'm sorry, the Washington Times today, Greg Pierce inside politics quotes Chuck Todd at the National Journal, which is uh the hotline and so forth.
	In fact, I uh I'm gonna wait to start this because I can't squeeze it all in in our remaining broadcast seconds here.
	But I mean, he lets loose here with what the uh real problem that Hillary faces is, and then Carl Cameron on the Fox News Channel also quoting what they're saying in Iowa that uh we don't see any interest in Mrs. Clinton here.
	We haven't seen her.
	I mean, this is you gotta come here if you want to win the nomination.
	She hadn't been here.
	Back in just a second.
	Brian, can you run over and pick those things up after the show and bring them back here before I have to get home for my manicure and haircut?
	Thanks.
	Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
	Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, your host for life.
	I was just kidding about the manicure folks.
	I don't get those.
	That's metrosexual BS.
	Your host for life here on Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882, Chuck Todd, the editor of the Hotline, Nationaljournal.com.
	It's tricky to write about Hillary Clinton these days because it seems everything's been said, just not everyone has said it, but let's attempt a fresher look.
	To many of us, or too many of us have awarded Clinton the 08 nod too soon and too easily.
	Really, Chuck.
	What was your first clue?
	The conventional wisdom crowd is easily impressed by two things about her candidacy.
	Now listen to this.
	This is a drive-by media guy attempting to tell us why they've anointed Hillary Clinton.
	The conventional wisdom crowds easily impressed by two things about her candidacy money and her last name.
	There's also a dirty little secret about that, those of us in the media are leery to admit.
	She's good for business, particularly expense reports.
	Now I don't understand that.
	Uh unless she throws a lot of parties they get to go to and deduct.
	I I But I don't think that's it at all.
	I you can't convince me that this is why the conventional wisdom in the drive-by media that Hillary Clinton has been anointed the nominee.
	Money in her last name.
	I know why.
	And you know, it's it's um and I've explained it to you before.
	Let me go through it one more time.
	It may not be the only reason, but there it is clearly a factor, especially when you when you include she hasn't done anything.
	It's like Obama hasn't either.
	And so the conventional wisdom on Obama has nothing to do with his qualifications or his achievement.
	It's because, well, he's Obama.
	Uh sounds like Bobby Kennedy.
	Uh, reminds people just want to touch him.
	I mean, they they're creating a celebrity out of the guy.
	What's he done?
	Um senator, but for two years before that, I don't know what he did.
	Nobody will have to be told what he did.
	If he's not been a governor, he's not been hasn't followed the usual career path.
	Uh and there's nothing that says you have to, but I mean it the the because anybody can be elected as long as you meet the bare essential qualifications in the uh in the Constitution.
	But here's my theory on why the drive-bys have anointed Hillary Clinton.
	And I think it it it goes back to the fact that they are the Clintons.
	They're the same generation.
	They went to the same screwels, they went to Wellesley, and they went to Yale, and they went to Harvard, the Northeastern citadels, if you will, of enlightened elitist thought.
	And Mrs. Clinton remember an early feminist icon, and she was not attractive, and that was a fundamental necessity of being an early feminist.
	You could not be attractive, because remember, feminism was established in part to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of uh of American success in society.
	So she fit the bill.
	And she was said to be brainy and very smart, although we haven't seen much evidence of this.
	We're just told it's the case.
	Anyway, she goes to Wellesley and does whatever she does at Wellesley, but you don't have to do anything there, just going there is a statement.
	Then she graduates there, goes to Yale Law School and runs into Slick Willie.
	And the word around Slick Willie was this guy's going places.
	I mean, he's a road scholar.
	He's going to be president someday.
	Well, that appealed, I'm sure to Hillary.
	And she hitched her wagon to the guy, intending to follow him as far as he could go and then take over when he got there.
	The problem is that the wagon, the Clinton wagon, left the enlightened elitist Northeast, and where did it go?
	It went to the sticks.
	It went to Arkansas.
	Here is this enlightened, educated, early feminist icon, Hillary Clinton, giving up every she could have made it on her own.
	She didn't need to hitch her wag into any guy, but she did.
	And where did it take her?
	Arkansas, the sticks.
	And she gets down there, and her husband's a governor and earning 26 grand a year.
	And that that's, I mean, it's not why you go to Harvard or Yale or Wesley.
	So she had to take the gig at the Rose Law Firm.
	She was the breadwinner.
	And while she's doing the breadwinning, and while she's out there sacrificing and giving up her own future to hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton, what's he doing?
	Well, hello, Jennifer Flowers, and whoever else.
	Public humiliation upon public humiliation.
	And yet she stuck in there.
	She hung with him.
	She was loyal.
	Because she knew he was going places.
	And it worked, and they got to Washington.
	And she exacted her revenge by getting a co-presidency in charge of health care, which she totally botched, by the way, in a managerial sense, and uh in a in a in a constructive sense, and though the whole thing was just was just botched.
	There might have been a way to get what they wanted done, but she eschewed the normal processes, and as you know, uh it bombed big time, and it led to the Republicans winning the House in 1994 along with a lot of other factors.
	And then here comes Paula Jones.
	And here comes Kathleen Willie, and of course, Monica Lewinsky and the cigar.
	And through all of this, the news was presented to us that Mrs. Clinton was clueless, that she had no idea, despite the Jennifer Flowers episode, and however many others there were in Arkansas.
	She had no clue, had no idea whatsoever, devastatingly hurt, but she hung in there.
	She hung in there.
	And so now it's her entitlement.
	After giving up everything she got, giving up everything she earned, she could have fashioned a career on him, not saying she could have ever made it to the White House on her own, and that's a dirty little secret about all this.
	But still, I think this is a factor, folks, in why there's been so much conventional wisdom and uh apparent entitlement.
	It's she just her turn.
	I mean, she she she deserves it, coupled with uh the magic of the, you know, there's a the Clintons were the uh hoped for Camelot too.
	You know, and uh drive-by media love Camelot, and they would love to recreate Camelot uh as uh as well.
	All those orgies and stuff, I mean, at parties and state dinners, well, state dinners that serve as excuses to have the orgies.
	Uh, and uh, and then so that there's all kinds of stuff wrapped up into this, and I'm just stunned to hear Chuck Todd talk about, yeah, it's money and her last day.
	Come on, Chuck.
	If you're gonna be if you're gonna be honest, be honest, open up and tell us exactly what the fascination is with Mrs. Clinton in the White House and what it's always been.
	He writes further, take the money and the surname drama and add a dash of media anticipation, and you get the simplest explanation of the perceived Clinton juggernaut.
	But there's one flaw in all of this, though, and that's the electorate.
	As the likelihood of a Clinton campaign becomes a reality, more reasons turn up that suggest why she could lose the nomination.
	In fact, the primary may be harder for her than the general election.
	A bad three-week period at the wrong time in the wrong state.
	Well, a three-week period, that would be bad.
	I wouldn't want to be around.
	Oh man.
	This guy is amazingly open about this.
	Nevertheless, such a thing could uh doom a bid, particularly with this front-loaded primary calendar.
	While the same thing can happen in a general, the same ridiculous scoring of expectations doesn't apply to general elections the way it does in primaries.
	And then also on the hotline on their blog is a quote from Carl Cameron, the chairman of Iowa's Democratic Party told Fox News that Mrs. Clinton's not been adequately laying the groundwork for her campaign.
	And uh uh she she may not run because of growing buzz over Senator Barack Obama.
	Interim Iowa Democratic Chair Rob Tully said she's been quiet.
	And you know there's a question that we all hear is that she may not get in this if Barack Obama gets in.
	I mean, I I've never seen a reaction other than Bill Clinton in terms of the excitement that people have to meet Barack Obama.
	Some people just want to touch him.
	So um something is something is going on.
	Either there's there's some somebody somewhere is trying to doom Hillary's bid, or they're lowering the expectations, or she's actually not gonna run, or what have you.
	Uh but this I think the day is that it's hers.
	And especially with Vilsack, the governor of Iowa getting in this yesterday, the notion that the nominations is hers, uh and that the Clintons can band together to get everybody else out of it so that she gets it.
	Apparently that that that's gone by the wayside.
	And I just want to take you people back.
	I mean, I I remember well the last year or two when I would go out on my little secret jaunts that I can't tell you about.
	People would come up to me and say, Hillary, can't anybody beat Hillary?
	I said, I'm not convinced she's gonna run, but I'm certain that she can be beaten if she does.
	But there was this there was this fear, overall fear that she was gonna get the nomination.
	If that happens, she was a shoe-in, and well uh th that's the impression of drive by media left, but now that's all changed.
	It could change on a dime in January, too, next month.
	I mean, you never know.
	Quick call before we have to split here for the break.
	Jody in um If Freita Washington, welcome to the EIB network.
	Good morning.
	Hi.
	It's a pleasure to speak with you this morning, thank you.
	I have a sixteen-year-old son.
	He just turned sixteen and he goes to public school.
	He is a c in a computer class of some sort.
	I don't understand it.
	Anyway, um, because he is far enough ahead and he gets his work done in a timely fashion, he's allowed to get on the internet at school.
	Yes, at school.
	In a public school.
	And periodically he comes home and he tells me what he has seen on your website.
	Um, which he just adores you, by the way.
	Thank you.
	Um it's inherited, however.
	I appreciate it.
	Anyway, um I was wondering, is there anything on your website on that the 24-7 um thing that if he were subscribed to that and were to listen to it at school that would be objectionable in a public school setting?
	I think if they found out he was listening to any of it, uh they'd kick him out of school, want to send him to some sort of sensitivity training, get his mind right, then call you in and then threaten to take him away from you uh to send him to social services.
	Well, other than that.
	I mean, well, I mean after all, you're calling me from the state of Washington.
	Oh, don't remind me.
	Now, now let me but but but look, yes, I mean, I I I think like there's gonna be a story today, and it's a follow-up story.
	The Sundance Film Festival is doing a documentary about the guy that died having sex with a horse at uh at Immanclaw, uh, Washington.
	Oh, yes, that's the one.
	You remember that story?
	Now would you Oh yes.
	Now that's that that's a documentary that's gonna be shown at the Sundance Film Festival, which is Robert Redford, so I've got to talk about that today because we we talked about that when it happened.
	Now the way we talk about it on this program is is is in a look at how depraved culture uh we live in, and we laugh at it, but we don't promote it.
	That would depend, you know, you uh uh uh i i I think the question is whether you would be concerned at some of the stuff your son might be too young for.
	I happen to not think so.
	I think sixteen-year-olds are uh aware of far more than their parents think they are.
	But uh, we're responsible uh on on this program, and we don't do cheap bathroom humor for the sake of it.
	There's always a cultural or political point being made when we when we do discuss some of these depraved cultural stories, and there are quite a few, and there would be and there there would be some in the uh in the archives is uh as well.
	So I you know, I don't I don't know quite what to tell you uh other than to put it that way.
	You it it the I think in in terms of public school, I I think look at I had when my first two books came out, I had kids get kicked out of school because they took my book to class.
	I'm talking about eighth and ninth graders.
	Ten and eleven-year-old kids.
	Uh I uh if he's caught looking at my website by the wrong person in that school, everything I told you is going to happen, and you may lose your son.
	Well, I mean it might not be that bad, but but he would they they they'd shut him down.
	They would shut him down.
	And he would have to take a stand and stand as there's nothing wrong here.
	Tell me what's wrong about this.
	You know, challenge him back.
	And most people don't do that with a when authority comes knocking on the door.
	Well, we are on the other side of the state from the em clause.
	I understand that.
	It might be a risk worth taking, but you know, you could Jody uh does he use his computer at home?
	Yes.
	Well, then this problem solved.
	Even he have him try it at school, and if something happens that uh that that gets him thrown in jail or thrown out of school, he can always use the website at home.
	How long how long have you guys been subscribers?
	Well, we're not subscribers.
	It just occurred to me when he started coming home talking about what he had seen that had been on the program yesterday before.
	Oh, okay.
	You're only accessing the free site.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that would be imminently safer, but it's still it's gonna have the news of the day.
	Look, I'm gonna I'm gonna make you and your son complimentary subscribers for a year, uh, so you can get the whole site, and you can look at it at home and and decide for yourself whether or not he should risk it at school, okay?
	Well, bless your heart.
	Yes, I know.
	Stay on hold here, and a nice man will come on and get your information so we can we'll get you going today as a comp user, okay?
	Okay, Jody, thank you.
	Very sweet.
	I appreciate the call.
	We'll take a quick time out and be right back.
	How are you?
	Welcome back.
	L. Rushbaugh.
	You heard about the scandal at Columbia Journalism School.
	A bunch of the students cheated on an ethics test.
	They cheated on an ethics test.
	At Columbia University's graduate journal, there's no reason to have a graduate journalism school.
	One journalism school's enough.
	Uh at any rate, uh, Tom in Knoxville, Tennessee, you're next on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
	You bet, sir.
	Hey, uh interested in your thoughts on something.
	If you'll recall, uh back before the uh Iraq war, uh, there were there was a I guess pressure on the president to uh to get in and get this thing taken care of.
	There was a short window.
	And now that it's gotten to the point that it has, I'm noticing that this emphasis now from the media and from uh celebrities on Darfur.
	And I I don't see that being much more of an opportunity um uh versus even Iraq when you're looking at a civil war.
	I just was interested in your thoughts on that.
	Okay, this is my fire both barrels at you here.
	Uh Darfur is no different than Ethiopia.
	You've got a governmental genocide going on there, uh a forced famine.
	Uh it happens, it seems like every six months there's a new crisis of this type in Africa.
	Uh we had uh Rwanda with the Hootsis and the Tutus.
	Uh it is just we've had we've had the probably ED Amin Dada in um in uh where was where was that?
	Uh regardless, here's here's here's the way you have to look at this, Tom.
	These people that you're talking about, media and celebrities and Democrats want us to send troops into Darfur to solve this problem.
	Now, somebody tell me what is the vital national interest in Darfur that would justify sending in U.S. troops.
	The answer is zero.
	Zilch.
	Nada There's not one U.S. interest at stake.
	This is purely humanitarian.
	You can't remove from this the race factor.
	These are black people being killed.
	Even though they're being killed by other black people, it's still black people being killed in Iraq.
	There is a certainly a definable national interest, the war on terror.
	And they want us to get out of there.
	Tom, the truth is that the left will happily commit troops and the U.S. military to do social services And meals on wheels in places we have no vital U.S. interest.
	But where we have a vital U.S. interest and victory is necessary, they are not interested at all because they don't want military success to be defined by winning wars.
	They want military success to be defined as spreading social programs, goodwill, food, and all of that.
	And that's it totally.
	Okay, first hour.
	Went by lickety split.
	Two more to go, however, and they commence right after our brief top of the hour timeout here, folks.
	We'll be back before you know it.

▲