All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
February 13, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
A thrill and a delight to have you with us.
I am Rush Limbaugh, and I am besieged and uh racked with the ravages of the common cold virus.
Nevertheless, am here serving humanity, executing is signed.
Host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Telephone number if you'd like to be on the program 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at eIBNet.com.
I don't know if you know this or not, but adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than do biological parents.
This, according to New National Study, challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
How many of you knew it could figure that that's where this was headed?
The study published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review.
Pardon the sniffles.
It's going to be this way probably all week, folks.
Anyway, the study published in a new issue of the American Sociological Review found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them and eating together and talking with them about their problems.
It's a beautiful thing.
One of the reasons that adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they will go to extraordinary means to have them, said Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study's three co-authors.
Adoptive parents face a culture, where to many other people, adoption is not real parenthood.
What they're trying to do is compensate.
They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the stage for them to be better parents.
You know.
This is just so predictable, and it is more of what we have already experienced in an effort here to overturn the institutions that have defined society and civilization for years.
It's not just that we have to overturn.
Now we have to actually suggest that these institutions that have worked miraculously and marvelously for all these years are actually not good at all.
Uh the the truth to this and the whole purpose of this research, again found in the opening paragraph here.
Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
So what they're saying is essentially that, hey, you know, uh same-sex marriage and gay adopted parents, why much better than even normal parents, much better than than natural parents, because they really want the kids.
And they'll go all away and they'll fight all the taboos and so forth.
They'll really, really be much better parents.
Now, this this is this is standing everything on its head.
This is what liberalism has to do.
In order for liberalism to succeed, and make no mistake that's what this is.
This is just another arm of liberalism.
This has nothing to do with uh, you know, true child rearing, what's better or not.
What has to happen for liberalism to succeed is that this is that the cultural norms that have been in place for thousands, gazillions of years have to be overturned.
Liberalism is a direct contradiction to the natural, to the normal.
And it is in in in many ways, and this is just glaring, glaring proof of it.
The researchers said that 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents.
Wait a minute.
Now, the researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two at Oh, okay.
So 161 families were headed by two adoptive parents.
Not two adoptive parents had 161 families.
It's the 161 families each had.
This is another example of rotten journalism.
I'm having to Explain to you what the writer here is saying.
So they had 161 families, and the heads of each of the families were two adoptive parents.
They um they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria, uh, including helping with homework, parental involvement in scrubel, exposure to cultural activities, and family attendance at religious services.
The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.
The researchers, what?
The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other child.
I know that I know what it means, certainly.
They don't socialize with parents of other children.
So what?
I couldn't tell you who my neighbors are.
Is it make me a lousy homeowner?
What the hell's this got to do with anything?
The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other so they didn't talk to parents of other kids.
Whoopee-doo.
Okay, then they didn't set up any play dates.
Of course not, because they're playing with the parents.
Of course they wouldn't set up play dates.
The whole point of this is they're playing with the parents.
The kids are having more fun with the parents than they have with other kids.
The parents, the parents are the whole life.
The adoptive parents, my gosh.
In fact, you know what we need to do here, folks?
If this is true, if this is if and everything's for the children, right?
The Democrat Party and everything, it's for the children, right?
What we need to do is just to hell with marriage.
Two people get pre- what?
What?
I can I know it's a risk.
I don't have kids, therefore I'm not qualified to talk about it.
I know that's the and yeah, I know.
But just see, you're reminding me of that story from Germany, and nobody can talk about anything unless you've done it.
Well, screw that.
As we said screw that then.
Look at if the Democrats, if this this look at this is big news.
This is AP.
And it's a long story.
And the whole purpose of this is what?
To tell us that adoptive parents are better than natural parents.
They're better parents.
The kids end up happier, they get more, they get more attention.
Uh so what we need to do here, if this is true and everything is done for the children, right?
Everything is done for the children.
Nancy Pelosi made it uh big deal when she was inaugurated as Speaker of the House, everything for the children.
Well, if adoptive parents are better than natural parents, then let the Democrats propose legislation that says every child born in America will be put up for adoption.
Because if a child stays with its natural parents, that's the lesser of two options.
Being adopted is much better than living with your natural parents.
That's what this research is attempting to say.
When you smirk out there, no rush, no.
That's exactly what it's trying to say.
See, if you just you you you guys, some of you people get caught up in the good feelings of all this, and you fail to take this to its natural conclusion.
Well, they're just trying to make the case that some adoptive parents are better, Rush.
That's all they're trying to- No, they're not trying to make the case that some they are making the case here that adoptive parents do better job of parenting than natural parents do.
And they're not drawing any distinctions.
Now we know the reason for this, this is to promote a social agenda of gay marriage and gay adoption.
Because gay marriage you're still gonna have to go adopt kids.
I'm sorry, you still have to do, or you're gonna have to have David Crosby come in and fertilize one of the wombs, whatever, but uh you're still gonna have to.
There's adoption's still gonna be part of the recipe.
And that's what we're being told here.
And so if that's the case, it's the case.
Uh the researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older and wealthier than biological parents, but they said the adoptive parents still had an advantage when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality.
In particular, adoptive parents had a pronounced edge over single parent and stepparent families.
Oh, see, it gets even worse.
Gets even worse.
Adoptive parents are even better than stepparents or single parents.
Yes.
Um of course, who's who's behind this?
The Associated Press.
Uh It is what it is, folks, and you can sugarcoat this all you want, and you rush your making too big a deal out of it.
I am not.
This is how societal norms and structures have to be torn down in order for liberalism and some of its oddball characters to be categorized as normal.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hi, how are you?
El Rushbow, America's real anchor man.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
This is Ray in Atlanta.
You're up next, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hey Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
I'll make a quick comment and then I'd like to just uh get your response on it.
Yes.
I'd be real interested in the military's non-binding resolution to Congress's non-binding resolution.
The military's non-binding resolution to Congress's.
What is the military's non-binding resolution?
Well, most likely it would be something to the effect of the resolution that uh is out in uh the House is a resolution of defeat.
And I'd be real interested in the military putting together a non-binding resolution in response to the resolution that's out there floating.
Uh okay, what would you what would you like the military's resolution?
I don't know what you want me to comment on.
Well, I'm I I just think it would be I think the mil I think the military uh I I would like for them to somehow be able to say without recrimination what they really think of these weak lily-livered politicians in Washington.
Well, they can't.
I mean, I uh maybe I'm I'm taking you too literally here, but they're they're not allowed to comment on this while in uniform.
They're not they're not allowed to um uh unless being questioned by Congressmen at hearings like General Petraeus was, and he said that these resolutions are gonna help help the uh the enemy, they're gonna embolden the enemy and they're gonna hurt uh hurt morale.
Uh uh, you know, there's not much more to say about these resolutions is what's being said, and that is they're non-binding.
They're gutless.
The Democrats don't have the guts to pull the funding from the war.
And so this is this is really nothing more than than uh political posturing.
Uh I mean, there's some, you know, I guess halfway interesting political things.
The Republicans, and I have no sympathy for this, by the way, are belly aching whining that the House Democrats promised them that there would be another resolution showing support, and Stanley Hoyer said, nope, sorry, not gonna happen.
And the Republicans are running around saying a Democrats lied to him.
Well, really.
A Democrats lied to them.
Stop belly aching and go win elections.
You know what it's like to be the minority in a House of Representatives.
You got no power whatsoever.
And you're not gonna get it back if you keep whining.
They won't let us have a resolution.
Just go win election.
I'm getting sick and tired of this whining and moaning, particularly when it comes from uh Republicans who know full well who the Democrats are.
But these are you know, non-binding resolutions.
The House, uh who cares?
I mean, I maybe some of this is my mood today, just not feeling up to snuff because of this cold, but frankly, I think it's irrelevant.
We're gonna have the surge, we're gonna kick ass, we're gonna kick butt, and a Democrats are gonna be out in the cold once again on all this.
This is the kind of stuff that's gonna backfire on them big time.
The bigger story is in the Senate to me, where the House Republicans held together and thwarted uh uh their their resolution.
I like some liberal columnists are starting now to question Hillary Clinton, like Richard Cohen in the Washington Post today.
Um I I have the piece in the stack here and I'll find it and give you specifics, but basically he's saying, you know, Mrs. Clinton is getting real tough to believe.
Because it makes it look like every man on the face of the earth can trick you.
George Bush can trick you, your husband tricked you.
You say you didn't know when you were giving him the authority to go to war, you didn't really think he'd go to war when everybody in the world knew that's what he was asking for, and you say you got tricked, and your husband tricked you, Kim Jong il trick you.
Who else is gonna trick you?
Uh Yeah.
I mean it's it's those are my words rather than his, but it's it's pretty much the uh pretty much the point.
By the way, the North Korean deal.
Uh everybody's gonna get their opinions about this.
I have found gazing at various websites that uh the conservative uh media excuse me.
Excuse me.
The conservative media is um uh not at all on board with this.
They think it's a big trick.
Uh they think that Kim Jong il has never lived up to any deal he's made.
Why should he start living up to them now?
The only the only caveat to that uh is China.
And that is if if if they if if the North Koreans do their usual North Korean trick here, uh it's not just to the United States.
They this these are the re this this deal is the result of the famous six party talks of which China was a uh member and participants.
So if uh if Kim Jong il stiffs this agreement, he's stiffing the uh the Chicoms.
It may not be something he wants to do, because the ChICOMs are in the lead on this.
They're out in front on this.
Uh time will uh time will tell, but man, are we giving them the we're giving them everything?
We give I added it up.
Uh seems like almost a trillion dollars worth of stuff.
Food and everything.
It's 450 billion here, or not a trillion, but well, yeah.
Trillium's a thousand billion in it.
No, it's not.
Darn it, my mind is not functioning when I have this stupid cold.
At any rate, uh it's a lot.
We're giving them all kinds of food.
We're giving them fuel, we're giving them uh uh forgiveness of debt, all all kinds of crazy things, all in exchange for them promising to dismantle their nuke program.
And to this point, nobody's even sure they really have one.
We know they're trying, and they ran this so-called test.
But uh nobody's really sure that it was a successful test of a genuine arrived nuclear program.
Anyway, uh if if I think most people's reaction to this is based on common sense.
They've reneged on every deal.
They reneged on a deal with the Clinton administration.
Uh why why make a deal with them now?
What is it that never seems to change about the West when arguing and negotiating with communists?
Why is it that we never understand that they lie?
And uh I think that answers can be found in various areas of diplomacy, the State Department, and the um the triumph of good intentions over common sense.
Probably no more complicated than that.
Wendy in Pittsburgh, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Um, thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
My question about that adoptive parent study, uh, the a hundred and sixty-one couples, were they heterosexual couples or were they homosexual couples?
Because I think that's an important uh item to know.
You know, you y are you comparing apples and oranges?
You know, I just was a little bit confused.
If if I were an NFL sports reporter, I'd be able to tell you that question because it would matter to me.
Uh but uh I don't think it says here.
Okay, because really if it's i if it's uh comparing heterosexual couples, then then the the uh left can't use that to promote gay adoption.
That that would be it it just you can't compare that then.
It'd be t a totally different family.
Uh not I don't I don't know that that would matter in terms of the uh thing they're trying to promote here.
Well, i it would matter because it uh adopt a family that's a ha uh you know heterosexual couple that's married is my is much more like a biological couple.
It's it's not you know if there's if they're studying heterosexuals, you can't take that out of context and then apply it to the Sure you can when you're this group, that's the whole point.
You're asking questions you're not supposed to ask.
Well, um I'm I think well you're asking them too, aren't you?
I'm what?
I think you're asking it too.
I think get it.
I don't have to ask them.
I already know what this is about.
See, I I know this.
Uh This is this is a scam.
It's a sham from the get go.
Well, I think you know, I'm an adoptive parent, and so I it it's important to me to know exactly what they're comparing.
So, you know, I just think that's a that's a fact that needs to be in that article.
Did you say you are an adoptive parent?
Yes, I am.
Well, how does it feel to be the best parent in the world?
Well, listen, by the grace of God.
That's what I say.
I hope you feel better, Russ.
Thank you.
I do too.
Uh but see the the the sexuality of the adoptive parents cannot be mentioned in this story or it'll kill the whole program.
Just gotta understand that.
And we are back.
Talent on loan uh from uh God.
800-282-2882, if you'd like to be on the program.
David in uh Nita, Massachusetts, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush megadiddos from uh the great little state here.
Rush out using the absurd to uh illustrate the absurd.
I find it pretty funny that Mr. King is questioning you.
I'd love to know what his accuracy rate is on predictions of games over the last five years.
I say he's lucky if he's at sixty-five percent.
Well, but that's I mean that's uh yeah, you can't you can't I mean nobody's perfect predicting things.
I wouldn't Well, he seems to be perfect in questioning how you should be looking at the politics with somebody with a ninety-eight percent plus rating rush, I would be offended that Mr. King would dare question you about politics.
And so he gets his own profession down to at least ninety percent.
I think he should stay with himself, don't you rush.
I appreciate the uh uh the support.
You have to understand where these people come from.
I've one of the things I've learned about the uh the sports sports media, it's just as liberal, if not more so than uh than the regular nine to five news media.
It's it's stunning.
Uh well Peter King can write what he wants.
I I I couldn't care less, but you know, th doesn't mean these guys are immune from criticism.
I marvel at the at the sports writer mentality.
These guys do get to act as though they are clean and pure as the wind driven snow, and they get to judge the morality and the um uh human characteristics of virtually everybody they write about as though they are flawless.
It's uh it's it's stunning.
But you can tell you when when when some of these guys venture off the beaten path of sports and uh and into politics, they betray themselves as who they who they really are.
But you know, I you know wouldn't care to get into a discussion about his competence based on his predictions in that sort of 'cause I don't think that's uh he's by all.
Uh excuse.
What um snurgly is saying I'm always so generous to these people and they always turn around and attack.
Well I know I know that that's why uh uh I know why that they turn around and attack, and that's because they uh uh they're uh they're small fry and they know it.
You know, and they resented my invading their turf when I had the ES ESPN gig.
And and they were just as I had so many of them tell me in the TV rush they were just waiting for you to then screw up and they were gonna try to drum you out of there uh for one reason or another.
But they they all consider themselves social activists.
Uh they they all do.
Anyway, I l let me deal with this another when I am when I'm more mentally competent to be able to focus on this sort of thing because I'm not I'm not really all there today.
Uh Doug and Elizabethton is that right, Elizabethtown, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Okay, Rush, thank you.
Um look, I I I agree with your I think you hit the nail on the head as to the reason for why this uh this study is getting any legs in the press, but I wanted to point out what I thought was the um why this thing is totally invalid.
And um that's because they're comparing apples to oranges.
I i if you look at the um the adoptive parent, they have to Go through a lot of trouble.
Um, so there's somebody to to adopt.
There's somebody who really, really, really wants children.
They gotta pay money, they gotta go through all sorts of tests and everything.
Uh the average uh natural parent um have this there's a spectrum there of people that did want children and people that really didn't want children.
So um, you know, if you had to work to not have children if you're married.
Um you know, I've got eight kids myself.
Uh we don't work too hard at not having children, but um Well, you got eight kids?
Yeah.
What did that take you about twenty minutes and a couple packs of cigarettes?
I gave up smoking a long time ago.
But um, so they're comparing apples to orange.
They're comparing, you know, uh, people that really really want children to a group that's all you can really say is that the average adoptive parent is better than the average natural parent, but you can't.
Well, it doesn't say that.
You're missing the whole point.
You know what?
I'm glad you called about this because this is illustrative to me of you're missing the point.
I am.
You are arguing this on the merits.
This cannot possibly be about the merits.
Could you think of anything more ridiculous than to assert that adoptive parents are better than natural parents?
Stop, period, right?
Okay, if that's the case, as this story seems to make, if that's the point, then and if it's all for the children, none of none nothing else matters.
No more natural parents.
Every natural parent n or couple that has a child, a kid goes up for adoption.
Because whoever adopts a kid's gonna be a better parent than the two who conceived it.
You're absolutely right.
Well, you start you start getting into how they did this, and what were the data and who were the heterosexuals and who were the homosexuals missing the whole point of what they're trying to do here.
That's right.
Well, you know, I'm they're trying to redefine normalcy.
They're trying to tell you, you and your wife, you together in about 20 minutes had eight kids, and that's bad.
That there's a better way of doing it.
That if you'd have gone out and adopted somebody else's kids eight times, you would be a better parent than you are with your own kids.
Is that not absurd?
Yes, it's extremely absurd.
I like the way you put it.
That is that that that yeah, uh, you know, they used to say every child a planned and wanted chow.
Now what they're saying is every parent a planned and wanted parent.
Uh well, uh as usual, Russ, you you hit the your your humor hits the spot and you and gets right to the heart of it.
So but I just wanted to add that little bit of uh analytical uh um uh viewpoint that this to people that might be confused or worried about uh you know uh about the the impact of that study.
Well, I appreciate that.
Uh let me let me think of an analogy here.
Let me let me come up with a most screwed-up analogy.
Let me uh uh let me posit the notion that um of I can't think of something right off the top of my head, but I'm going to in just a second here.
Uh l let's say that I propose just think of what would be something the most outrageous proposal that you could you could come up in your own mind involving human beings.
Um and rather than reject it out of hand as being absurd, you start debating the merits.
That's the mistake people are making here.
Let me read the first paragraph of this thing again.
Adoptive parents.
Adoptive parents invest more.
Oh, and by the way, I just checked the email during the break.
Somebody said, Aren't you taking your Zygam?
Yes.
If I hadn't taken the Zycam, I wouldn't be here today.
I am I wouldn't be here all week if I hadn't taken.
I am still swabbing with Zycam and it busted it up started busting up with less than twelve hours.
I'm saying this is a rotten chest cold.
It is as bad as I've ever had.
Even had some fever with it.
And if it weren't for the Zycam, I would not be here today.
Uh so glad I reminded myself to make that point.
Now back to the first paragraph of this story.
Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study, uh challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
Period.
No, you don't need to ask questions about who were the parents, where do they find them?
That That right there tells you what the point of this is.
And the point of this survey is to uh or research, study, whatever, is to present data which will allow uh uh the proponents of gay marriage and gay adoptive parents to say C, C, we can even be better parents than you heterosexual parents who are denying us the right to be, because of your causal new social norms and so forth.
To debate this is to fall into the trap.
Start asking for specifics on the study is to fall into the trap.
Um I got it.
Proposal.
Drinking your own urine require it will result in much better and long-lasting health than drinking water.
You're not gonna say who did the survey, who did the study, why did it you're gonna say it's ridiculous, and you're not gonna pay any more attention to it.
That's about what this is.
Because when you when you posit the notion that adoptive parents are better than natural parents, period, then what do you do?
Well, you you you you're there if if everything's for the children, you can't have a mixture.
If one is better and it's all about the children.
Uh you have to you have to understand the politics behind all of this.
You know, one of the things that I think, as I uh travel the highways and byways and thoroughfares, the back roads, the front roads of life.
Many people refuse to see, or because they don't want to, or because they joke don't just don't see it, the politics behind practically every social concern in this country.
Politics propels it, politics defines it, politics is behind shaping it or reshaping it.
You know, people I hate politics, I don't like politics.
Too much partisanship, not enough getting along and so forth.
Here's a classic example.
You want to be bipartisan here on this?
Where's the area of compromise between the notion here according to the study that adoptive parents are better than natural parents?
Where do you compromise them?
Well, okay, then let's do 30% adoptive and 70% natural.
Why it's absurd to even start talking this way.
Um and it's it's its purpose here is to is to start just just like the the attacks on every other cultural institution, be it the nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments and public display, what is just to wear you down so that eventually you throw your hands up in frustration, say, okay, okay, I'm tired of arguing about it.
Because this is not going to go away.
I mean, this is just this is strike one, and it's going to keep coming next time we'll see survey of 300 adoptive parents.
And 4500.
And uh so on down the line.
It's this is the nature of liberalism, folks, and it's uh I don't know, plain as day to me after reading this opening paragraph what this is all about.
The rest of the stuff is just icing on a cake.
The researchers said that a hundred and sixty-one families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria.
In fact, an array of every criteria but one.
The researchers noted that adoptive couples were older and wealthier than biological parents, but they said adoptive parents still had an advantage, albeit smaller, when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality.
So what's this saying?
Well, of course, you factor in the two young people in their early to mid-20s to have kids.
Of course they're gonna have less money than an older adoptive couple.
We're gonna use this to suggest that uh natural parents in their twenties are not good for kids, or that there's a better option called adoption.
Meanwhile, throw this one at them.
Try if you want to find out how firmly they are behind adoption.
How about adoption in cases of abortion?
Would you suggest, and would you go along with adoption instead of abortion?
Because the same people behind this who are these pro-choice pro-abortionists.
So you ask these same people the next, well, how about if we send a kid that's gonna be aborted to an adoption agency?
No, no, no woman's rights choose.
Women's so what happened.
I thought I thought adoptive parents, well, well, can't get in the way of women's rights to choose.
These people are full of it, folks.
Just don't swallow all this.
Fall for it.
Don't, don't, don't, don't get so sidetracked to start debating the specifics here when it's obvious from the get go what's really up.
Everybody's asking me to explain to them why the Anna Nicole Smith story is such a big media story.
And about the best we can come up with here is that you got a blonde, large breasted train wreck.
You got all the ingredients necessary for big media story.
You get train wreck, get blonde, you get big breasts.
And plus, as soon as you got half the male population of California claiming to be the father of uh of her childhood.
I ought to put myself on a list.
I mean, suddenly people are claiming paternity here are about as absurd as mine would be.
The only difference between me and those guys would be I don't need the money.
Which is the only reason they're putting themselves on a list like Jaj Gabor's husband.
Prince Frederick von Anhunt or some such thing claims to be.
Anyway, it's just it's it's it is a study in pop culture.
Uh to figure out why the Anna Nicole Smith story, which is now what, a week old.
And it's not gonna subside, folks.
It's just gonna keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
And it's when you realize she she never was anything.
In terms of genuine achievement, she never was anything.
She's a playboy playmate, and it was downhill from there.
Well, I'm not trying to be mean, but somebody tell me where I'm wrong.
She never was anything.
Tucson, Arizona, John, your next, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I have a solution to the uh adopting adoptive parents are better than natural parents uh dilemma.
Adoptive parents have to go through all kinds of tests, qualifications, and whatever to actually become parents.
Yes.
But if you're a natural parent, you can just be any old idiot and have a kid.
Right.
I think natural parents should have to go through a parental test or qualifications to actually be able to have parents, have kids.
Right?
Who's gonna be who's gonna put the test together?
What kind of questions are gonna be on the test?
I'll put it together.
You'll put it together.
Give me I don't know.
Whoever puts the whoever puts the test together for adoptive parents puts it together for natural parents.
This is trouble.
Are you are you serious or are you just trying to be funny here?
I'm trying to to I'm not I'm I'm being funny in that the same thing.
But you see the problem the problem here, and I uh I want to warn you people about this as many times as it takes.
The problem here by taking any aspect of this story and building on it or debating it is lending credibility to an absurd proposition.
And this is how liberalism gets a toehold, a foothold into our society.
They come up with a do you people understand how stupid this proposition is that adoptive parents are better parents than natural parents?
Urgo, ergo what?
If you start debating this, then you have lent credibility to that credibility to that proposition.
Then you're opening yourself up to all kinds of dangers because in debate, we all know that in America today, for everybody to get along, there must be compromise, Mr. Limbaugh.
There are death must be compromise.
Well, who do you think's gonna compromise here?
Well, I guarantee you it would be the natural parent lobby.
Can you imagine natural parents needing a lobby?
But we're gonna have a natural parent lobby before this is all over because there's gonna be an argument here because the adoptive parents lobby is gonna end up claiming they're better parents than natural parents.
It's if you engage them in any aspect of this, which I've been trying to warn you people not to go there today, and you keep going there.
It has me worried for the future of the country.
Okay, okay.
Everybody's asking me about Obama.
We'll start talking about Obama in the next hour.
Frankly, just so you know, I could not care less about Obama.
So I'm gonna treat this as open line Friday on Tuesday.
▲
Export Selection