Rush Limbaugh Program - December 11, 2006, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:34

December 11, 2006, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Hiya, folks, how are you?
	I hope the weekend was fine and dandy.
	Mine was, as you probably guessed.
	We've got a full week of broadcast excellence straight ahead here.
	We are, I mean, truly overloaded, overwhelmed.
	I got more stuff here than I can possibly.
	I mean, if I only spent five minutes per item, I couldn't get it all in.
	And that's not even considering phone calls.
	It's a blessed event for a good friend of mine.
	Got an email today from a good friend of mine.
	So I just want to let you know, after months and months and months of effort, my wife and I are pregnant.
	And I wrote back, I could not be happier, especially to learn that I am not the father.
	Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
	El Rushbow 800-282-2882 and the true story.
	Email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
	All right.
	George W. Bush spies on al-Qaeda terrorists, and apparently Bill Clinton was spying on Princess Diana.
	This is an unbelievable story.
	I had no clue that Princess Di was such a threat to our national security.
	I know she was dating a Muslim, but Clinton didn't care about that, as we have learned.
	So what was he jealous?
	What was going on here?
	Here are the details from the London Evening Standard.
	American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a U.S. billionaire.
	That would be Teddy Forsman.
	She was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the United States with Teddy Forsman on advice from secret services who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts.
	Both U.S. and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Forsman in the summer of 1997, saying it was too dangerous to take her sons there.
	Instead, the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with the owner of Harrods, Muhammad Al-Fayed.
	This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Doti Al-Fayyad, where they then died in a car crash.
	The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard comes as it emerged that Princess Diana's phone was bugged by U.S. intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services.
	Apparently, U.S. secret services have a number of secret files on Diana and her closest associates that are held by the National Security Agency.
	The reports cannot be released because of, quote, exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
	Now, come on, folks, what could this possibly be?
	What in the world could it possibly be?
	And to all of you pinheads out there, this paranoid little creeps that have been so worried about the domestic spy program, quote unquote, of the Clinton administration, of the Bush administration.
	What do you think now?
	Your boy Clinton out there spying on Princess Diana.
	The only thing that makes any sense is he was jealous.
	Here's he running around with Teddy Forsman.
	And I know Clinton's rich because he doesn't miss an opportunity to tell us so.
	I make so much money now.
	I don't need that tax cut.
	You've heard him say this.
	Well, Teddy Forsman's a multi-billionaire.
	And as Bill Clinton has learned, no matter who you are, there's always somebody with more.
	And what could possibly be the reason that we would be conducting surveillance on Princess Diana?
	Well, Mr. Sterdley has advanced an idea.
	She was active in the anti-landmine cause.
	And of course, the United States, a butcher of a nation, wants to be able to put landmines all over the world to destroy our enemies.
	Maybe they considered her a threat because of her stance on landmines.
	It can't be conflict diamonds because that hadn't come up yet.
	Let's see.
	Conflict diamonds, what else was that?
	Couldn't be fur.
	She wore fur.
	It couldn't have been any of that.
	The American people loved her.
	I don't know.
	This one is a hard one to fathom.
	I want to see the reports.
	I want to see the details.
	I want to see what is such a threat to national security in the dossier of Princess Di.
	I never even looked at her as such a threat.
	Let's move on to this silly little story out in Seattle involving the Christmas trees at SeaTac Airport.
	Here it is, basically as I understand it.
	For years, they've been putting up Christmas trees in the terminal buildings at SeaTac.
	And nobody's said a word about it.
	Nobody's had a complaint.
	It's Christmas time.
	Put up the trees.
	The airport calls them holiday trees, but they're Christmas trees and so forth.
	A rabbi walking through the airport saw that there were a lot of Christmas trees, but that there weren't any menorahs, Hanukkah displays.
	And he and his lawyer, and this is where the whole thing broke down, he and his lawyer threatened to sue the airport if they didn't put up Hanukkah displays.
	The airport said, oh, the heck with this.
	I don't want to mess with this.
	And they took down the Christmas trees.
	Well, now the rabbi and his lawyers, whoa, no, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
	We had no, no, we didn't want the Christmas trees to come down.
	We just wanted the menorahs to go.
	We love Christmas trees.
	We have no problem with that whatsoever.
	And the airport said, screw it.
	We don't want to deal with a bunch of lawyers in a threatened lawsuit.
	It was the threatened lawsuit that caused the airport to cut and run.
	And anybody with a brain would, if you're going to start suing over something like this, especially in Seattle, where you're not going to ever get a jury that you'll win in a case like this, to hell with it, punt it and move on down the line.
	Now the rabbi and his lawyers, well, don't blame us.
	You threatened a lawsuit.
	I mean, everybody's talking about a great guy the rabbi is, and he probably is.
	And everybody's talking about what a great guy the lawyer is, and he probably is.
	But, folks, I'll tell you what, just as an American, as a human being, I'm looking at this and incidents like this, and they're happening all over the place.
	We are so self-absorbed with our own hypersensitivities.
	Everybody is waiting to be offended.
	Meanwhile, we have genuine enemies that want to wipe the floor with us and look at what we get self-absorbed in and act all offended and get so outraged for crying out loud.
	It's Christmas time.
	And Christmas time has never been a time of oppression.
	It has never been a time of you.
	It's happiness and joy.
	And it's, or is intended.
	Well, I'm going back to my childhood when it was happiness and joy.
	Now it's even Christmas has become a moment of confrontation, a period of confrontation.
	I just think this is, we're just losing it.
	You know, this is the kind of thing that worries me more about losing the country than whatever the hell is happening in Iraq.
	And I am deadly serious when I tell you this.
	Here's the latest from the Seattle Times on this.
	Well, I don't know if it's the latest.
	I got so many stories.
	I don't know which came first, which came last.
	As odd as it might seem, SeaTac Airport officials were hoping to avoid controversy when they had maintenance crews working Friday's graveyard shift dismantle nine holiday trees festooned with red ribbons and bows.
	Well, yeah, really offensive stuff.
	The airport managers ordered the plastic trees removed and boxed up after a rabbi asked to have an eight-foot-tall menorah displayed next to the largest tree in the international arrival hall.
	Port of Seattle staff felt that adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the Northwest.
	And the airport spokeswoman said, We're not going to do that.
	The holidays are the busiest season of the airport.
	Staff didn't have time to play cultural anthropologists.
	We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive.
	We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and we'll review policies after the first of the year.
	Now the Christmas trees are down.
	Everybody around the country has heard about it.
	Everybody around the world has heard about it.
	And the rabbi is the target.
	The rabbi and his lawyer are the target.
	And they don't like being the target because they claim this is not what they wanted.
	They just wanted a menorah up there.
	They say they never claimed or threatened to have the Christmas trees taken down.
	But their mistake was threatening a lawsuit because the airport's not going to take a chance.
	Specifically, since we're talking about three to four more weeks of this before it would all come down.
	But give you an idea of the thinking here.
	The spokeswoman, and this is not to be critical of her, Terry Ann Bettencourt, the airport spokeswoman.
	Adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the North.
	What other cultures are celebrating the birth of their Savior this time of year?
	Ramadan's over.
	The Chinese, I don't even know if they do it.
	Well, the communists don't have a savior in Karl Marx.
	What are we talking about here?
	Other cultures.
	Kwanzaa?
	Kamza?
	I mean, I'm having trouble expressing this, folks, but I think this talked about it before.
	People just sitting around waiting to be offended, waiting to feel oppressed, and wanting to take revenge and feeling vengeful about these kinds of things when there was no intent to insult or offend whatsoever.
	It's just a stand, it's a national holiday.
	Folks, do we understand this about Christmas?
	It is a national holiday in addition to being a Christian holiday.
	At any rate, and there are examples of this.
	I'll bet you I've got three or four, not this high-profile, but there are countless other examples here in my multiple stacks of stuff.
	After which, a break, we'll get to all the rest of this, plus your phone calls.
	800-282-2882 if you want to be on.
	Oh, got some audio soundbites on this Christmas tree thing.
	Just so you can hear.
	Here's the rabbi.
	This morning, he weighed in on the Christmas trees being removed from the airport.
	This is Rabbi Elazar.
	I hope I'm pronouncing him his name correctly, Bogomilsky.
	Here's what he said.
	People that I've bumped into that know the story today are just shocked that the airport would make a decision.
	The port would make a decision to actually remove the Christmas trees.
	Here's an employee of the C-Tech Airport, Jim, who reacted yesterday about this.
	It's a Christmas tree.
	You know, it's not like they're displaying crucifixes or, you know, menorahs or any other religious displays, but a Christmas tree that's been around here for years.
	Yes, exactly.
	Why is the rabbi shocked that the airport would take down the trees?
	What in this climate of constant litigation and a minority getting all upset about violation of civil rights and people being offended every day?
	That seems to be the way some people spend their lives.
	What's the airport supposed to do?
	Path of least resistance.
	Pure and simple.
	I remember one of the other stories in the stack.
	There's a story yesterday in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
	There's an elections controversy here in Palm Beach County, where the Palm Beach, where the EIB Southern Command is.
	And apparently, there's some people upset that polling places are in churches.
	Because you might actually see a crucifix in there.
	You might see a cross.
	You might see the Ten Commandments in there.
	And you might see something like we are all under God or one nation.
	You might see things that are really threatening when you walk into a church, ladies, to vote.
	And so we've got to remove all these polling places that are in churches so we don't have to see the Ten Commandments.
	We don't have to see a crucifix or a cross or be reminded that there's a God.
	Hey, Mr. Broadcast Engineer, go out and round up some Al-Qaeda Christmas music before we get sued here.
	Go get some Chinese Christmas music or some Russian Christmas music or what have you so that we can not be the target here of people who sit out there spend all day offended.
	You know, I was thinking about this Diana thing during the break, folks.
	It could well be this.
	It could well be that the Brits asked us to spy on her because they wanted to know what she was up to, but they didn't want any record of them having done it.
	We were sharing information with them, and they've got plausible deniability as why the Brits are out there saying, oh, they did it without our permission.
	We don't know what's going on.
	You never know.
	You never know.
	Fascinating stuff.
	One other quote here from the Seattle rabbi's lawyer.
	The last thing we need is anyone thinking that Jews want to end the celebration of Christmas on public property.
	So the rabbi spending the day out there today on the TV talk show circuit continuing a media frenzy that began Saturday.
	Now, this is a classic illustration of the drive-by media, too, by the way.
	The drive-by is of one, they've taken this comment from Seattle.
	They've blown it up.
	They have exploded this all over the country.
	They've created a frenzy here now.
	Somewhere in the bowels of this story, the truth are to be found.
	And the drive-by media is not caring much about that because it's the explosion and the incendiary nature of this story.
	And it's got everybody all excited.
	Of course, what Obama is doing to them, I've never seen the likes of.
	He's Lincoln.
	He's Kennedy.
	Folks, it is incomprehensible to me as a reasonably intelligent human being to watch this cattle show with the drive-by media going gaga over this guy.
	It is just amazing.
	Lincoln and Kennedy.
	He's been in the Senate for two years.
	We've got, I mean, we had the man from hope, Slick Willie.
	Now we have the man of hope, Barack Hussein Obama.
	Anyway, about this quote, the last thing we need is anyone thinking that Jews want to end the celebration of Christmas on public property.
	Now, some initials come to mind when I hear this quote.
	ACLU.
	ACLU has made a career the past, how many years doing just that, ending the celebration of Christmas on public property.
	Some cases, they've even tried to stop the celebration of Christmas on private property.
	They're not all Jewish, don't misunderstand, but many of the leaders of the group are.
	So I think this rabbi's lawyer out there needs to know why this is being reacted to the way it is and why the drive-by media is able to blow it up.
	Let's go to the audio soundbites.
	It's literally amazing.
	I, the featured quote, asked of the Iraq Surrender Group authors to react to.
	Now, how much did I spend on the Iraq Surrender Group last week?
	How many days?
	And then how many words would that translate to, do you think?
	Listen to this montage, ladies and gentlemen.
	Bob Schieffer, Steve Livingston, Eric Sean, MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell talking yesterday about my assessment of the Iraq Surrender Group's report.
	Rush Limbaugh calls the whole thing stupid.
	Rush Limbaugh in his talk program referring to it as stupid.
	Like Rush Limbaugh said, it's stupid.
	What's your reaction to Rush Limbaugh calling the plan stupid?
	So of all of the words, over all of the hours that I spent dissecting, brilliantly so, the problems with the Iraq surrender group, one word is attributed to me that it is stupid.
	And it went further.
	Steve Scully, who was doing C-SPAN's Washington Journal yesterday, actually decided to go to my website to look at what I actually had said.
	And he found that I said something more than it was stupid.
	If you go to rushlimbaugh.com, he calls the study group the Iraq Surrender Report.
	And a quote from the transcript, President Bush moved quickly to distance himself yesterday, as I pointed out.
	These are the words of Rush Limbaugh.
	I play to you those two soundbites on this program.
	And I said those soundbites came to answer an insolent, arrogant British reporter, the BBC, coming from the president's soul and came from the president's heart.
	They disagreed.
	They were great variants, shall we say, how useful the Iraq Surrender Group's report was, and so forth.
	What he was talking about was we played a bunch of soundbites.
	The president, starting out in his press conference with Tony Blair, had a Iraq study group report.
	Very useful.
	A lot of interesting things to look at.
	We're going to spend some time studying this.
	It deserves that.
	Later in the same press conference, the president got this insolent question from the BBC reporter.
	And in his answer, the president's, from his heart and from his soul, let it be known that he doesn't agree with anything in the Iraq study group.
	He's not going to pull combat troops out.
	He still thinks we can win.
	And he's not interested in having Syria and Iran.
	The more I think about this, it's just unbelievable.
	Come on board to help us solve our problem.
	What?
	Oh, I know.
	Syria says they're all for it.
	The Iranians love the report.
	The Iranians love the Iraq Surrender Group report.
	How does that make you feel, folks?
	Probably breathing easier out there, aren't you?
	And the Syrians, you know, they've weighed in on it and they love it.
	The Iraqis, Jalal Talibali, don't like it.
	Well, screw you, pal.
	You're not supposed to like it because you're dead.
	We're getting out of there.
	You're on your own, and Iran and Syria are going to be able to overrun you.
	I mean, that's what the Iraq Surrender Group Report would do.
	Bush says he's not going to do it.
	I want to leave you this break with a quote from Dwight Eisenhower in 1949.
	If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.
	They'll have enough to eat, have a bed, and a roof over their heads.
	But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.
	Dwight Eisenhower, president of Columbia University, December 8th, 1949, at a luncheon club speech in Galveston, Texas.
	All right, there's more of this Iraq Surrender Group and me from the Sunday shows coming up.
	Back to the audio soundbites now on the one and only EIB network.
	I, by the way, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, doing real news on this program with real commentary, real opinion, properly stated and identified in advance.
	Face the Nation, Bob Schaefer, talking to James Baker, co-chairman of the Iraq Surrender Group.
	They had this exchange.
	The New York Post called you two surrender monkeys, whatever that is.
	Rush Limbaugh calls the whole thing stupid.
	Is this going to be just another report that somebody sits on the shelf and nobody pays any attention to it?
	Because this does not seem like it's building toward a consensus, but maybe making the divide wider.
	Were you surprised at this?
	We're not making the divide wider.
	And no, I'm not surprised, Bob, that there will be opposition to what we suggest.
	And I submit to you that there will also be opposition from the left.
	But the fact of the matter is, the president, the administration has an extraordinarily difficult problem here with Iraq.
	The country has a very difficult problem with Iraq.
	And frankly, Bob, I think the situation is such that politics as usual is not going to come up with the answer.
	There has to be a unity of the American people and a unity of the country behind an approach if it's going to work.
	Now, therein lies what's wrong with this.
	This whole thing has become domestic politics.
	I told you last week, the real war is here in this country.
	It is being waged against President Bush by the drive-by media and the Democrat.
	And now some failing linguine-spinned Republicans, Gordon Smith, who most people have never heard of, senator from Oregon, is now saying, we got to get out of there.
	It's even worse.
	He's a Republican.
	We have his soundbite coming up here in due course if I decide I want to play it.
	But as I told you last week, what this document is, is it's a push for consensus and bipartisanship and unity on the part of the American people.
	Hey, you know, I love unity.
	I really do, but not behind surrender, folks.
	I don't believe in unifying behind surrender.
	And this exactly was politics as usual, Mr. Baker, because when politicians fear the hard decisions, when they want out of making the hard decisions, they appoint a blue-ribbon commission like yours or a bipartisan commission like yours.
	This entire report is politics as usual.
	This entire report is an embarrassment.
	This entire report ignores the whole concept of victory.
	This report does not even reference military action.
	This is all about unifying the American people.
	Behind what?
	Iran and Syria having dominance over the region in order that we might get out of there unscathed without our feelings hurt and no more loss of life.
	Here's, see, I told you so.
	This is last Wednesday during the first hour of my program.
	This is what I said about the Iraq surrender group.
	This document's not even a military document.
	There's nothing in it about winning the war.
	As we thought, as the leak suggested, there's nothing in here about winning the war.
	You know what this document is?
	This is all about trying to bring the American people together, bipartisanship, make sure that everything is just hunky-dory and kumbaya here in the country.
	I didn't hear myself say it was stupid there.
	I actually think the quote works.
	Don't misunderstand.
	I just, of all the things I've said about it, they pull out.
	Rush Limbaugh says it's stupid.
	That works because most people in America know what stupid means, might not know what bipartisanship means.
	Some of them might not even know what unity means, but they all know what stupid is because most people think everybody else is stupid.
	So by that definitely, they have to know what it means.
	Well, listen to this.
	Here's Andrea Mitchell Sunday on the Chris Matthews show discussing one of the main factors about the Iraq surrender group report.
	I was told that the Baker-Hamilton people, all of them in their meetings were all talking about one fact, and that is the New Hampshire primary.
	They have to get the combat troops out because neither side, you had five Republicans, five Democrats, neither side wanted to be debating this war when the primaries began.
	It's the first I've heard of that.
	Let me translate this for you in case you didn't hear it.
	She says she was told, she doesn't say by whom, that the Baker-Hamilton group and their meetings were all talking about one thing, and that's the New Hampshire primary.
	The 08 New Hampshire primary.
	They have to get combat troops out of Iraq because neither side, Republicans, Democrats, neither side, wants to be debating this war when the primaries begin.
	Now, yeah, my opposition is politics as usual.
	My criticism is politics as usual, according to Mr. Baker.
	But this, the Iraq Study Group, if Andrew Mitchell's source is right, the Iraq Study Group's primary goal is to get troops out of there so it doesn't screw up for either party, the New Hampshire primaries and the kickoff of the presidential race in 2008 on politics as usual.
	We are going to unify the country behind the defeat of a war, the loss of a war, surrender in a war.
	Also, Senators McCain and Obama and Hillary and Rudy Giuliani and whoever else gets it, Mitt Romney don't have to talk about the war in Iraq as a debate topic or a campaign idea in the 08 presidential run-up.
	That is what Andrea Mitchell has just said.
	If anything that is politics as usual here, it's the Iraq Surrender Group Report, the Inside the Beltway mentality that went together assembling it.
	Joseph in Brooklyn, you're first as we go to the phones today.
	Great to have you with us.
	And hello.
	Good afternoon, Rush.
	It's great pleasure speaking to you.
	It's been 10 years.
	It's been 10 years since I last been on the show, and I've missed all that time speaking to you.
	I wanted to point out about the issue you mentioned earlier about voting booth in the church.
	The reason that there was opposition to that is because Jewish law disallows entering a non-Jewish house of worship.
	And effectively, by having voting over there, it's preventing people who follow that law from actually voting.
	So that's where the opposition to that starts.
	Look, I don't know Jewish law, so I can't sit here and debate that.
	Well, if it's right or wrong, you can't debate it if it's right.
	Right.
	If I were a liberal, I would debate you, even though it's right.
	I'm trying to find the story.
	It's in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
	It's going to be buried somewhere here in the stack because I frankly didn't intend to get to it this soon, but it melded well with this silly little Christmas tree story out there in Seattle.
	My only question to you would be: they've been voting in churches in Palm Beach County for quite a while.
	In fact, my polling place is not actually in a church.
	It's in a church wreck hall across the street.
	You can't help but miss.
	See, you cannot miss the religious symbols and so forth and some of the posters that are on the walls when you go in there.
	And nobody's been complaining about it till this year.
	If it's been against Jewish law, how come it's been going on for so long?
	Well, the problem is not passing by a church or going across the street.
	I think the problem is that Jewish law prohibits actually entering a non-Jewish house of worship.
	Now, it's also true that many Jewish people might not necessarily adhere to Jewish law by the book, but then again, there are people who do.
	So just because you see, I mean, you know, just because you see a Jewish person doing something doesn't make it dependent on the fact that I know when I see a Jewish person.
	Well, it depends, though, how religious.
	Don't go there.
	How would I know when I saw a Jewish person?
	How would you know that's not?
	Well, I'm looking at a human being.
	How would I know the person's Jewish?
	Well, you might have a yarn on his head.
	Host wins another one here.
	Well, he might have a yarmick on his head.
	That would tell you.
	Well, okay.
	It finally took you a couple minutes to think of something.
	You know, here's what this is all about to me.
	Jewish law notwithstanding.
	I don't know about that.
	And if that's true, then of course, you know, there's a problem there.
	But I've not heard the objection being raised until this year.
	But it's just like this Christmas tree business out there in Seattle or where you can, there are as many stories as there are minutes in the day that go to how we are offended and we are outraged and we feel like we are oppressed.
	And I frankly cannot personally relate to it.
	And that's what makes it so difficult for me to understand.
	And it's also why I have sometimes so little patience for this stuff.
	There are far more important things.
	There are far bigger things.
	It makes me wonder just who's upset and why they're upset and what is their objective.
	And I can't help but conclude that there are some people who are attempting to tear down the traditions and institutions that define this country that made this country what it is and keep it what it is.
	I am, you talk about being sensitive.
	I'm becoming more and more sensitive each and every day that there are more and more people who hate this country, who live in it, who prosper in it, who benefit from it, yet who hate it.
	I mean, I went to dinner last night.
	I was insulted.
	I get insulted all the time.
	You know, and if I'd be suing everybody left and right every time I was offended, every time I was insulted, I get insulted institutionally.
	I get insulted personally.
	I get insulted in the media.
	I mean, I get insulted by friends who think they're trying to be funny.
	Do I go, I'm going to sue you or walk out or whatever?
	I just, I just, life is too short.
	I don't want to surrender the power to be that offended to people.
	I don't want my feelings to be totally determined by what other people do or say or think, particularly about me.
	But it seems we've got so many people with no backbone, just scared to death to be who they are, that they've got so much time to run around trying to change everybody else and what they're doing in order to make themselves feel better or to exact revenge or just to be mean or just to have 15 minutes of fame in a TV show or what have you.
	All I know is it used to not be this way.
	And I know you can't go back to the good old days and so forth when things were admittedly simpler and all of that.
	But there are destructive forces.
	I'll tell you, the days I look around, we're losing the country right in front of our eyes, and it isn't in a rock.
	Back in just a second.
	Merry Christmas, everybody.
	We got our Christmas tree up.
	You can't see it.
	We have a bunch of little trees up here at the EIB Southern Command.
	We've even got a, by the way, I have to tell you about this.
	I got, I was.
	I was sent and received probably three weeks ago.
	I mentioned that my favorite all-time bird is the pelican.
	And two ladies who live out in the great Northwest commissioned a professional sculptor.
	I need to take a picture of this and put it on a website, but a picture you will not appreciate.
	They had a pelican standing on a log, sculpted and, I guess, painted in a very subtle way.
	It is huge, and I think it's pretty close to the actual size of a pelican.
	Those are huge birds if you get close to one.
	And I've got it out there, a little Santa Claus hat on it, thereby making my pelican sculpture a religious figure with the Santa Claus hat on it.
	But we got all kinds of signs out there and all signs of symbols and everything.
	So it's Merry Christmas time from all of us here at the EIB Network to all of you.
	Here's that story that I was referencing.
	It's from the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
	From December the 7th, vowing to fight a lawsuit claiming a Delray Beach church, strewn with religious messages, was an unconstitutional polling place.
	Election supervisor Arthur Anderson said that using houses of worship as polling sites is essential to the voting process.
	So, how about this?
	A church strewn.
	Normally, the word strewn is associated with trash and garbage.
	Like the landscape was strewn with the carcasses of media people who thought they could get elected to public office.
	Or the landfill was strewn with junk and garbage blown away by a rising wind.
	But here we have a church strewn with religious messages.
	A Delray Beach photographer Jerry Rabinowitz challenging the election supervisor Arthur Anderson in federal court, saying the choice of Emmanuel Catholic Church as his polling site violated the First Amendment.
	The church had anti-abortion and Christian messages posted inside and outside the voting area.
	The law seat said there were crucifixes, a poster of the Ten Commandments, and directly above voting booths, a sign that said, each of us matters to God.
	Oh, no, that had to be what broke the camel's back.
	Let me tell you something.
	Crucifix in a church strewn, crucifix is probably strewn all through the church.
	Polster of the Ten Commandments, why, we know how divisive those are.
	We know how destructive the Ten Commandments, they tear down a society.
	You put the Ten Commandments up there, we're not going to be able to maintain law and order.
	We have total breakdown in virtually every aspect of life.
	And of course, above the voting booth, each of us matters to God.
	Man, they're really being provocative at this church.
	Who do they think they are?
	So apparently this suit is not being fought on Jewish law.
	It's being fought on federal constitutional grounds.
	Unconstitutional have to go in there.
	The election supervisor says, hey, if we got rid of churches, we wouldn't have enough places for people to vote.
	There's also absentee voting.
	There's early voting.
	There's any number of ways of avoiding this if you want to be offended.
	But see, if one or two people are offended, the whole system has to be crumbled down now.
	The whole system has to be rearranged and reordered if one or two people, as few as one or two people, have their feelings hurt or are offended.
	I was reading this story, and I was asking myself, if a Jewish synagogue happened to be my polling place, would I refuse to go there?
	And would I be offended if I had to go to a synagogue to vote?
	No.
	Not in the slightest.
	I'm not that insecure.
	I'm not going to walk into a house of worship and not see a crucifix or not see the Ten Commandments and go, oh my God, maybe I'm wrong.
	Oh, no.
	And get all worked up about it.
	Can you imagine being that whack, having that lack of confidence in your own core principles that walking in someplace that doesn't reflect them can shatter you?
	I just, I'm sorry, folks, I can't relate to this kind of weakness, and I don't think that's what it is, actually.
	It may be in some cases.
	I think what it is is just a bunch of malcontents who are taking on the majority for the sake of it because they're miserable people to begin with.
	Back after this.
	Stay with us.
	I've got to go to Chicago.
	Rob, I have about one minute, but I think you can squeeze it in here.
	Welcome to the EIB network.
	Oh, thank you very much, Rush.
	I'll make it very fast.
	I want to back up to the Diana thing for a minute.
	You don't suppose that maybe Bill Clinton had Princess Diana bugged because he was hoping to listen to something saucy?
	Well, With Clinton, you know, it's difficult to reject anything when it comes to something like this.
	My original thought was maybe jealousy of dating Teddy Forsman, far more money than Clinton had, especially when he was president.
	Who knows what was going on with Clinton and Diana?
	Well, given his perversions, I would say that it was probably he was listening for something that he shouldn't have been listening to.
	Well, we don't know.
	It could also be that the Brits wanted her spied on and couldn't legally do it and asked us to do it, giving them plausible deniability so that they can say, well, we didn't know about this and we're angry about this.
	But, I mean, since Clinton's involved, look at the main point here is, folks, do you understand we've just spent two years and we've had an election getting rid of some Republicans because you thought they were endorsing spying on you.
	We've been spying on terrorists for the past three years.
	Your precious golden boy Bill Clinton's out there spying on Princess Diana all these years, a private citizen, at the least.

▲