All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
January 5, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to your thrill seekers and music lovers.
All across the fruited plane, it's time for broadcast excellence.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida via New York City.
It's Open Line Friday.
Yes, sir, Rebob, an abbreviated week.
Here we are already at Open Line Friday, and the rules are very simple.
I don't have to care what you talk about today.
Other days of the week, that's required, but not today.
You can talk about whatever you want, and I'll fake it if I don't care about it.
So essentially, we go to the phones.
The program is yours.
In fact, that's the way most hosts do it every day.
But not me.
Here's the number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
How about this headline?
French ministry appeals against pork soup ruling.
Would you like to hear the details of this?
It's Friday, folks.
I know the Democrats are in the House, but we're watching a little bit of it today.
And the Republicans look like they don't want to be there, which is understandable.
They've been aced out of everything, which is their own fault.
Whining little guys.
Can you even include that in the partnership?
Come on, get real.
At any rate, the French Interior Ministry has appealed against a court ruling, which allowed an organization with far-right links to continue to offer pork soup to the homeless.
Paris police had banned the pork soup kitchen last month, arguing that the handouts discriminated against Jews and Muslims who do not eat pork on religious grounds, but they saw the ban overturned by an administrative court on Tuesday.
The food handouts are organized by a nationalist group called Solidarity of the French.
It says it's pig soup, which uses pork fat for stock is country fare, much loved by French traditionalists.
I don't know.
The thing just struck me as funny.
Oh, by the way, oil prices, isn't this amazing?
Oil prices are now below $55 a barrel.
They dropped below that benchmark price today, a day after plunging more than $2 a barrel.
Now, here's the excuse given.
Warm weather in the U.S. contributed to higher than expected U.S. inventories of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel.
How's that?
With warm weather, I figure everybody'd be out driving more.
And they're driving less out there in the West.
We've had all this stuff.
That's not what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen.
What's happening here is that big oil is colluding once again to lower the price in an effort to stave off upcoming investigations led by the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
Everybody knows this.
Everybody knows that big oil can manipulate the price of oil worldwide whenever they choose to.
And they've heard it.
They've heard the threats coming from Pelosi and Reed.
They're going to bring big oil to its knees.
And so now with the Democrats in office, the oil price is plummeting.
Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee, affectionately known as the punk here.
Interesting timing on this, isn't it?
He's got his memoirs out.
The book comes out later this month.
But miraculously, advanced copies have already appeared.
And in this book, McAuliffe lambastes John Kerry, who served in Vietnam for a horrible presidential campaign, calling his effort to unseat President Bush one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics.
In the book, McAuliffe criticizes Kerry's campaign, said he was responsible for defending, but he McAuliffe was, was responsible for defending it, ultimately lost to what he described as a more organized Republican machine.
McAuliffe called the Kerry campaign gun-shy, distracted, and incompetent.
Everybody knows that McAuliffe will die one day of anal poisoning because he's so close to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There's no accident here, ladies and gentlemen, that this book comes out now as we enter the run-up to the official beginning of the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.
The book is entitled, What a Party, My Life Among Democrats, Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators, and Other Wild Animals.
McAuliffe plans a 25-city tour to promote the memoir and parties to celebrate its publications.
He's got a big one February 8th in Washington, hosted by Mrs. Clinton.
January 22nd, another party hosted by former President Clinton.
The book full of revelations from McAuliffe's years among the power elite, getting a startling leg rub from Yasser Arafat at a dinner, watching Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow make out during a showing of goodwill hunting at Camp David, and being chastised by former President George H.W. Bush during the 2000 election for treating his son with such disgrace.
The Kerry people have said, come on, come on, come on, let's look forward.
There's no point looking backwards.
We did everything we could, everything we could, right?
The book is full of stories about how the Democrats are all upset because Kerry and his campaign people were ordering, get this, were ordering people not to attack Bush.
Hell, you can don't attack.
Was Bush not attacked during the 2004 presidential campaign?
They said that he should have attacked Bush during the convention.
It didn't do that.
Edwards was upset that he wasn't allowed to attack Bush out on the campaign.
This is news to me that Bush was not attacked.
Now, normally, ladies and gentlemen, we don't spend a lot of time perusing ESPN to see what's happening at ESPN, but somehow Cookie, who watches and sees everything, found this.
This morning on their cold pizza show, I think it's ESPN too, actually.
Patrick McEnroe, the same brother of tennis pro John McEnroe, and Skip Bayless are discussing the upcoming football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the New York Giants.
Bayliss says, Patrick McEnroe, who you got in this game?
They got the Eagles in this one.
And you know what?
It's weird when you think that maybe Rush Limbaugh, excuse me, and Terrell Owens were right in saying that they might be better off without Donovan McNabb, which is kind of scary, and I don't agree with that.
But what Jeff Garcia has done, he's added energy, but he's also adding emotional energy, but stability in the way they go about their offense.
I never said that.
I mean, I can understand there's somebody not paying attention to this.
I never said that.
Do I have to keep repeating?
How many years has this been?
All these years later, and still when the Eagles get, even when McNabb's not playing, I get somehow lumped into the discussion.
I'll tell you the most interesting thing about the Eagles this week is that Wilma McNabb, the official team mom, went to her son's website and talked about how the city of Philadelphia would crucify her son if the Eagles do win the Super Bowl without McNabb.
Man.
And then William Roden, well-known racist at the New York Times, wrote this piece about McNabb and how tough it is being a black quarterback in the NFL and said that the city of Philadelphia would lose its soul if McNabb does not return as quarterback next year.
All right, Nancy Pelosi, we have audio soundbites from her speech yesterday.
Wes Pruden put it well today in the Washington Times.
Basically, the thing to conclude from Pelosi's speech is that estrogen is better than testosterone.
Now, I have a story that I have been holding here, and I've been holding this since December 17th, from the American Thinker, one of our favorite think tanks and blogs.
And the piece is by Selwyn Duke.
And I've been waiting for just the right occasion.
I could have gratuitously done this at any time.
I saw this story up until now.
But had I done it randomly, indiscriminately, without some tie-in to an event, no doubt the charges of sexism and chauvinism and male pigletism would have been leveled at me.
But now that we have Pelosi there, we've got her speech and we've got the way she's conducting herself, and the way people are reacting to this, this piece is entitled Extolling the Female Tongue.
And let me just give you the lead.
A long time ago, I read a short online piece about how women could get their men to put the toilet seat down.
Now, inherent in it was the idea that this was an example of men's lack of consideration and that the task at hand was one of disciplining these bad boys.
I don't know.
My attitude is that if women can leave a toilet seat down, men can leave it up.
Of course, it's just a silly pebble-in-the-shoe issue, but it's a metaphor for modern phenomenon.
The casting of women's characteristic behaviors as the norm and men's as dysfunctional deviations.
So you see, my friends, it fits.
I'll give you details of this and other things.
The rest of the program as it unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
Sit tight.
America's anchorman, America's truth detector, and doctor of democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball here on the EIB network.
All right, let's set the stage now.
The ascension to power of Nancy Pelosi is a huge female thing, more than anything else.
And to set the stage, just to let you hear some of the idolatry here, Drive-By Media, overjoyed.
No temper tantrum this year, ladies and gentlemen, with the voters.
Here's Charlie Gibson last night on ABC's Wordled News tonight.
Good evening from Capitol Hill.
Well, it is a hallmark of this American democracy that power transfers peacefully.
Yes.
For the first time in the 218-year history of the Congress, a woman was voted by her colleagues to be Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, took the gavel.
Yes.
But in a picture perhaps even more symbolic, the new speaker was on the floor for a time, holding her six-year-old grandson all the while, giving directions on how events were to proceed.
It seemed the ultimate in multitasking.
Taking care of the children and the country.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Can't believe it.
Taking care of the children.
You see, up till now, the children haven't been taking care.
By the way, folks, if you haven't done it, you have to go to rushlimbaugh.com and look at our homepage.
The graphic, have you been there, Sterling?
You see the graphic of the Queen Bee Syndrome that we did?
You've got to see this.
The side-by-size of Pelosi and Hillary.
You've got to study it, though.
I mean, it is hilarious.
Look at Hillary.
Her wings are down.
Her little antenna are down.
She's dressed as a frumpy Woodstocker with the Birkenstocks and black leggings.
Of course, black has the slimming effect, as we know.
It's at rushlimbaugh.com.
Here she's taking care of the children and she's taking care of the country.
Multitasking.
Well, let's go to a montage of Pelosi, her remarks about working with Republicans.
I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.
We may be different parties, but we serve one country.
No, we don't.
In this Congress, we must work together to work together with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.
Openness requires respect for every voice, an obligation to reach beyond partisanship.
That just stands.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
I wish it only took me one time to say stop the tape.
Cue the whole thing back up.
I talked over what was going to come next.
Openness requires respect for every voice, an obligation to reach beyond partisanship.
Well, then, why are you shutting the Republicans out of your first hundred hours?
I mean, I can understand, but don't sit up there and tell me that you're practicing a new art of bipartisanship.
I can understand shutting them out.
All right, let's you got this ready to go from the top?
Let's go.
I accept this gabble in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.
We may be different parties, but we serve one country.
No, we don't.
In this Congress, we must work together.
Never have to.
Work together with the highest ethical standard and with civility and bipartisanship.
Openness requires respect for every voice, an obligation to reach beyond partisanship.
Let us stand together to move our country forward, seeking common ground for the common good.
Here's another portion of her remarks that are run through these fairly quickly.
I want to thank Paul and our five children, Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul Jr., and Alexandra, and our magnificent grandchildren for their love, for their support, and the confidence they gave me to go from the kitchen to the Congress.
Yes, you see, ladies and gentlemen, this is a triumph of feminism and estrogen, as Wes Prudence says today.
And the long 200-year national nightmare without a woman at the top is now over.
We have waited over 200 years, never losing faith.
We waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights.
But women weren't just waiting.
Women were working.
Never losing faith.
We worked to redeem the promise of America that all men and women are created equal.
For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling.
No, you have cracked it, but you have not broken it.
I wonder when she loses next, if she'll go back to the kitchen.
If her kids and family allowed her to go from the what do you bet she hadn't been in the kitchen in a long time anyway?
It's just it's just well, but let me look.
Did you see the Washington Post story about their big bash last night?
Now, look, I don't have, well, I'll just have to share some of the quotes with it because it's hilarious.
But this bash is all you've got people from the unions and feminists and so forth talking about how we've got to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor in this country.
And of course, it's $1,000 to get in there, and they're drinking champagne, eating bleanies, ravioli, and this sort of stuff.
And a Washington Post person, well, don't you think it's kind of a little odd here, you people having this opulent?
Well, yes, it is.
We got to get more of those people out there into things like this.
It's just hilarious.
The idea that Democrats are the lunch pale party and are at one with the American downtrodden is absurd, but they get away with the image.
They're just as elitist and they're big-time ritzy partiers as anybody else is.
All right.
Here is Pelosi paying lip service to Cindy Sheehan.
The election of 2006 was a call to change, not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country.
Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in the war in Iraq.
And at that point, Jack Murthy stood up, standing ovation.
Last time he'll be noticed.
Pelosi will see to that.
But, of course, she's wrong about all of these things that she credits for their electoral victory.
But anyway, now you get the point here.
Charlie Gibson going on and on, oh, first woman 218 years.
This is marvelous multitasking.
She can give directions on what to do, plus care for her grandchild, so she can take care of the country and children at the same time.
Now, this piece from the American Thinker, Extolling the Female Tongue, has as its premise that there is a modern phenomenon, and that is the casting of women's characteristic behaviors as the norm and men's characteristic behaviors as dysfunctional deviations.
And he starts out with a humorous illustration about the toilet seat.
But it's still a good thing.
You never hear a guy complaining that his wife left the toilet seat down or up, whatever it is.
It's not a concern for me anyway.
I have my own toilet.
But you do hear women complain about men and toothpaste and all this sort of stuff.
And it is set up so that the male behavior is what's not normal.
It's what needs to be corrected.
Whatever it is that the women do in these domestic situations, whatever their characteristics are, those are norm and men are not.
This is strikingly obvious with the topic of communication.
Man has long known that women were the more loquacious sex, the more talkative.
And you've probably heard of studies to this effect.
A recent book states that women have about 20,000 communication events, psycho babble, that's what the book actually calls them.
20,000 communication events a day versus about 7,000 communication events a day for men.
But this is nothing new.
Who didn't know a bevy of garrulous girls in school?
They're always sitting around chatting, and men have been making jokes about it ever since the cave days.
There are these normal behaviors and characteristics that men and women have, and they are different in many ways, are wired differently.
Men and women's brains are wired.
Yet we have, because of modern feminism and the feminization of our culture, it has led everybody to think that the normal male characteristics are somehow in desperate need of fixing and correction.
They are predators.
They are brutes.
They are insensitive and so forth, slothful.
All they do is earn a living.
And that's not enough.
Yes, so we're back on Open Line Friday, Rushland Boy here at 800-282-2882.
If you're just joining us for a few moments here, we're bouncing off of the impression being left with the drive-by media, Nancy Pelosi herself, that somehow we are a better country now, and we're in better hands because a woman is Speaker of the House.
It's sort of like when I lived in New York City and General Dinkins, Mayor for Life David Dinkins, won the mayoralty there, the first black mayor.
The newspapers the next day talked about how the hobos were nicer, the homeless were not quite as provocative, the birds were chirping louder, sky was bluer, grass was greener, everybody in the subway was as nice as they could be.
It was all this stupid, silly symbolism.
You know, we're all human beings here.
We are all people.
And the idea that only certain of us are qualified or only certain of us make things better, and that some things like our gender are alone singular qualifications for being better than somebody else.
And that's the impression being left here.
And I know tied up in it is the age-old liberal complaint that all of these minorities, anybody who is not a white male, has been living a life of utter oppression and depravity, and they've been eating dirt for 215 years.
And now, finally, we're starting to turn the tables.
And now we've got the women in charge.
How many years of the women have we had?
These things just keep cycling themselves.
So what this does, folks, very subtly and over a long period of time, it causes us to recede into groups of various kinds.
It reduces the whole concept of individualism.
And we're not going to judge.
I mean, the whole idea here that all of womankind has been raised up by virtue of Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker is absurd.
It is literally so absurd that one of the latest Democrats, one of the new freshmen, Heath Schuler, not the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with.
I have a story in which he says his two-year-old daughter, who he named Island, his two-year-old daughter is inspired by Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the speakership.
Now, Heath, I don't have what?
What do you mean?
Oh, come on.
Of course, it can't be.
His two-year-old can't possibly know who Pelosi is other than as a cartoon figure on television.
Maybe Pelosi breastfed him.
I don't know when a kid was pregnant.
Who knows?
she's capable of doing everything else but a two-year-old being it's daddy the two-year-olds talk Tell me.
Do they know the word inspire?
They don't know the word inspire, do they?
Daddy, Daddy, Missy Pelosi, she inspires me, so I will be just like Miss Pelosi did.
Come on, folks.
What kind of insanity are we dealing with here?
So I've been holding this piece from December 17th for the American Thinker called Extolling the Female Tongue.
It's by a guy named Selwyn Duke, who is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker.
And his premise is that we now have so acculturated our society to the feminist motif that women's natural characteristics are considered normal.
Men's natural characteristics are not.
He focuses quite a bit here on speech and talking and so forth.
And I'd like to expand it a little bit beyond that.
But what is new is the assumption that this imputes superiority to women, the chattiness, all of the communication events.
As a book he quotes described, women have 20,000 communication events a day, men only 7,000 communication events a day.
And the assumption is that this imputes superiority to women.
Communications become one of the buzzwords of modern psychology.
And whenever relationships are at issue, be it in a book, an article, talk, or interview, almost invariably, an expert will inform us of two things.
One is that women communicate more than men.
The other is that an onus belongs on men, as this handicap of theirs is an impediment to good relations.
They just don't have as many communication events in a day as women do.
And this is why there are problems in relationship, because men just shut.
Men just don't talk.
They don't have enough, they don't have enough communication.
Try telling that to me.
Anyway, why men need to learn to communicate more and share their feelings, we're told.
See, everything's oriented here around making men like women because women are supposedly fine and dandy and normal and men aren't.
Did anyone ever think that maybe women communicate too much?
They have too many communication events?
I'm raising my hand.
I can't, you know, this is not, folks, really.
This is not about sexism.
I'll be glad to answer a question once.
But by the 25th time I have to answer the same question, I start losing my temper.
Especially if I've answered it once or twice or three times this week, and next week the whole thing comes, and I have to answer this whole question.
And usually the questions require me to defend my behavior, to explain why I am the way I am.
And I clam up at that point because I say, what's the point here?
I refuse to be put on the defensive.
And the assumption being that somehow I am cockeyed or wrong or weird or odd.
Now, don't get me wrong, writes Mr. Selwyn Duke.
Rhetorical license aside, I understand the importance of communication.
What bothers me, though, is the knee-jerk assumption here that more communication events are better.
A conclusion that most of the same researchers take great pains to forestall when the issue is, say, all the greater size of the male brain.
We're not going to talk about that.
But this is a principle of sex differences research.
When men have more, more is less.
When women have less, less is more.
And that's it, more or less.
What seems to escape most is that this modern exaltation of the lip lies in stark contrast to what wisdom has taught since time immemorial.
Shakespeare, brevity is the soul of wit.
And the truth she imparts is obvious, which is why sayings encapsulating it abound.
Still waters run deep, empty kettles make the most noise, shallow brooks are noisy.
There are two kinds of people who don't say much, those who are quiet and those who talk a lot.
It's why movies have always portrayed the strong, silent type who exhibits quiet fort.
Think Clint Eastwood.
He doesn't talk much as the most heroic of men.
The most heroic of men are those who exhibit quiet fortitude.
It's why good writers value verbosity no more than good surgeons do bloodletting.
One other thing on this.
Just imagine how it might be if incessant channel surfing were a characteristic female behavior.
How many of you men, and this is amazing.
Again, this is not sexist.
To me, it is anthropologically, sociologically fascinating as a case study.
It seems there are exceptions to this, but the whole notion of surfing quickly through...
I have watched football games with women in the past, and I will not watch just one.
If there are five games on, I'm going to see what's going on on all of them.
I'm not going to wait for the highlights.
So to do that, you've got to surf, and you wait for commercials or timeouts or whatever.
I have had women say, I want to watch football with you.
Fine.
They walk out of the room after about 10 minutes channel surfing.
They can't handle it.
And of course, now That is a male trait that somehow represents a deficiency.
The fact that women don't surf is considered superior and normal.
Well, no, it's, well, let me just let's, yeah, I can't commit to one game, but it's not that.
It's, listen, let me just read this guy's paragraph.
If incessant channel surfing were a characteristic female behavior, it would only be a matter of time before some psychologist conducted a study and portrayed it as yet another example of feminine superiority.
It would go like this.
Channel surfing is akin to speed reading, not a function of a fault, but indicative of a unique ability.
Because women have more neural connections between the two hemispheres of the brain, they can process information faster, allowing them to absorb the substance and assess the value of a given program in mere seconds.
Thus, while a man may perceive just a brief snapshot of seemingly unintelligible imagery and sound, his wife has already assimilated the program's relevant information or ascertained it to be devoid of such.
She's anxious to read the next page while he's still on the first paragraph of the last.
In fact, channel surfing represents supreme curiosity.
Channel surfing represents an idea that there is a smorgasbord of opportunity out there and you want to sample as much of it as you can.
And to say that it is somehow a negative trait of men and that because women don't do it, they are superior.
And you may say, what are you spending all this time on it?
Because I'm just trying to prepare you.
Now that Pelosi is there, we've been through this with Hillary.
We've been through this with a year with the woman, but now we have a woman holding the gavel.
And we are being told by her and drive-by media that this is something brand new and revolutionary and better than we have ever, ever had.
Note, we've never had old Grandpa Newt up there with the kids on his lap because he didn't care about kids.
That's the assumption.
Men don't just care because look, kids are fine as long as they're at home and the woman is raising them.
But don't bring them to the office.
I want nothing to do with it.
That's the image that is.
But look at Miss Pelosi.
Why?
She can multitask.
She can breastfeed.
She can clip her toenails.
She can direct the house all while a kid's sitting on her lap at the same time.
Take care of the children.
Take care of the country at the same time.
Never, ever been done before.
It's all about the feminization of culture.
And if you think I'm going overboard on this, stay tuned for the next story.
It is from the UK.
Boys and girls need separate classes.
Boys should be taught separately to stop them falling further behind girls as part of an extensive overhaul of the education system.
Why is this happening?
Because feminization has taken over the public school curriculum in the UK as it has here.
Because it used to be that boys were favored.
They said, we can't do this.
The girls aren't learning anything.
They don't even raise their hands.
They're afraid to open up in class.
So we had to start favoring the girls.
Then we segregated them.
We didn't segregate them, put them back together.
We integrated them.
Now, all of a sudden, the boys not even going to college in nearly the numbers they used to because they're just wandering aimlessly in life looking for a gun and an SUV.
Back after this, stay with us.
Yeah, I take it back.
Not all guys forsake college and instead try to find an SUV with a gun.
Some of them do go to college, like Duke.
And when they do, they end up being dismissed and charged with rape when there's absolutely no evidence they've done it.
And a whole faculty and administration throw them overboard under the preconception that everybody, women never lie and men are predators.
Well, there's an update here.
A former Duke University lacrosse player sued the university yesterday, alleging that one of his professors unfairly gave him a failing grade because he was a member of the team.
Kyle Dowd graduated in May of 2006, two months after the woman said she was raped at the lacrosse team party.
The lawsuit alleges that visiting professor Kim Curtis, female, gave him an F in a politics and literature class that nearly prevented him from graduating, even though he had earned passing grades on his assignments up to that point.
According to the lawsuit, only one other person in the 40-student class received an F, and that was another lacrosse player.
According to the lawsuit, Kim Curtis told Dowd, the lacrosse player, that he got a failing grade for participation because he hadn't attended class, because he'd made wrong statements in a paper.
The lawsuit claims that Dowd missed six out of 30 classes, one an excused absence for a lacrosse match, the other five resulting because of the criminal investigation involving the lacrosse team.
The lawsuit also states that Curtis, a visiting professor at who specialized in political theory and feminist theory, was listed in support of an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle that sympathized with the alleged victim.
The lawsuit also states that this visiting female professor of feminist theory, Kim Curtis, sent an email to students in her class, letting them know that she was available to talk about how this is affecting you and what we should do as a community.
The university overturned the failing grade, gave him a P for passing grade, and he was able to graduate.
I want to find out who this babe is.
And I'll tell you what, I guarantee you, folks, this is as nice as I can say it.
I will assure you, Kim Curtis was never invited to the prom.
Here is from her webpage on the Duke server.
Listed as research interests, visiting assistant professor of political science, specializes in political theory with particular concentration on contemporary continental work and feminist theory.
She has written Our Sense of the Real, Aesthetic Experience, and Orangian Politics.
She has also published articles on multicultural education, ethical debates among feminists over new reproductive technologies, and the early women's liberation movement.
She is currently at work on a book on the feminist movement in the U.S. that examines the relationship between theory and practice.
Now, I'm going to read what's next on her website that she wrote, and I swear to you, I'm reading it verbatim.
I'm adding nothing.
Efforts to silence dissenting voices indeed orchestrate feelings in the service of a docile and reactionary patriotism.
In crippling the range of permissible feeling, these acts foster a citizenry incapable of the elementary responsibility of democratic citizenship.
To think what we are doing and have done, we must embrace the task of learning a more complicated history of who we are by learning what we've done and understanding the effects of our deeds upon others.
And for this, we must draw on the full range of our Republic's feelings and thoughts.
Let freedom ring.
Now, this is the caliber of professor that parents of students at Duke are paying $40,000 a year for the privilege of attending class with.
And this is a woman who flunked the guy simply because he was at the party.
She bought into it totally because it fits her cockeyed preconception and misconception of the ingredients of this story.
Poor black woman, rich elitist, white guy, lacrosse players, and so forth.
And so he is suing the university and her.
And they're not asking a lot with 60,000 bucks.
They're not going for millions and millions and millions of dollars here.
Just $60,000 in real and punitive damages.
Want some money, but they're doing this to make a point.
This whole thing, folks, that happened at Duke University is a classic illustration of what I am talking about, which is the feminization of our culture and the assumption has been building over the years, decades actually, that women's behavior, their normal characteristics are superior, and men's normal characteristics are questionable.
We should be dangerous.
We should be afraid.
Men's normal characteristics have to be fixed one way or the other.
And now we've got one of these Kim Curtis types running the House of Representatives.
I am just warning you people.
All right.
I know.
I know.
And I promise.
We'll get to the phone calls early in the next hour.
I appreciate all of you being patient, holding on.
It is the Rush Limbaugh program, and time flies here, so we'll be back before you know it.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection