All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 19, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
February 19, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And this just in at the EIB network, the Senate is going into session again this Saturday for another non-binding resolution debate, this resolution on urging Florida to bury Anna Nicole Smith.
Now, I'm going to be against this resolution because I think we should bury James Brown first, who still isn't buried, by the way.
Let's get the order of priority right here.
What's wrong with people?
It's just incredible.
And why, by the way, are these folks up on Mount Hood?
Hikers on Mount Hood in the middle of winter in a blizzard now need rescuing.
We need to spend, you know, whatever it takes to get out there.
This is a Darwinian moment, folks.
If you want to pursue, in your pursuit of happiness, if it makes you happy to expose yourself on Mount Hood to the vigorous winter that, despite global warming, has descended on Mount Hood.
Against all expectations and predictions in the Northwest, there is actually still a winter and snow on Mount Hood and is actually a blizzard.
And these guys are trapped.
If this is your idea of pursuit of happiness, God bless you.
More power to you.
But it is a Darwinian moment for me.
If you are that crazy, then you accept the risk of coming back as an ice cube and being buried in line, you know, several months from now after Anna Nicole.
So this is, you know, I'm what?
We have to now spend money to get you out of Mount Hood?
Send Al Gore, by the way, who was trying to show his movie the other day in Washington, D.C., and it was canceled because of the weather.
No, the cold weather.
1-800-282-2882.
Here's Brian in Orlando, Florida.
Brian, welcome.
Roger, how are you doing today?
Good.
I just wanted to defend Ron Paul's vote against the, or actually I should say, against the troop surge, because he actually did vote originally against the Iraq resolution because he has a firm belief that we shouldn't fight wars, that we have unprovoked wars, essentially.
So I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries for president just because of his honesty and his consistency.
And I just wanted to help clarify that, because you had said that all of these Republicans had voted originally for the Iraq war.
Stand corrected.
Ron Paul did not.
He is so far out of the mainstream on this issue that he's been out of the mainstream since the beginning, Brian.
You're right about that.
He has his own position.
He has his own party.
He has his own nation.
He has his own island.
He has his brain, as a matter of fact, is a complete country in itself, is it not?
Well, I respect it, though.
I think he's a breath of fresh air.
I think more people should at least listen to what he has to say.
And if we listened to what he had to say on the border, for example, what would we hear?
Well, Ron Paul is very strong on border security.
He's very big on national defense.
He voted for the war in Afghanistan to give the president the power to go after the people who caused 9-11.
But he's just very, he does not want to see us fighting wars like the Iraq war that, you know, it was kind of an iffy thing to begin with.
And as we know, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm a Republican.
I went door to door for Bush in 04.
But I just think, and maybe we need to rethink some of the ways that we have been looking at things.
And I think he has a real good perspective on that.
Well, both of you are missing the point, but Brian, I appreciate the call.
The point, of course, simply being this.
You cannot, in a war on terror, differentiate the battlegrounds of the war on terror and say you're going to fight some and you're not going to fight others.
We, for instance, and this, of course, is completely forgotten by the drive-by media, as soon as it happened, we, for instance, have very successfully cleaned al-Qaeda out of Somalia.
We did it through the Ethiopian troops who in six weeks cleaned Somalia out and prevented another blackhawk down kind of moment there with our hands tied behind their back troops of the United States having to, you know, with all the rules of engagement, the Ethiopians just went in there and killed them all and forced the rest to flee to Kenya, and that was the end of that.
So there are different battlegrounds in this war on terror.
Iraq was one of them.
There are others that are not yet battlegrounds, but if Iran has its way, maybe there'll be more since they're going to be the next aggressor in this area.
But I'll tell you what.
Let's say Ron Paul, his desire, which coincides with the desire of the Democratic Party in the New York Times, is that we get to the sidelines.
Carl Levin's idea that we get on the sidelines, we redeploy, according to Murtha, to Guam or someplace.
We allow the Iraqi people to settle their situation.
It will not be settled by Iraqis.
As everybody, I think, understands, and I don't think I have to get too far into this.
I think you understand that Iran is going to arm the Shiites, that the Saudis and others are going to arm the Sunnis, that the civil war, in fact, will take place that the left has been talking about for months now.
It, in fact, will full war take place.
And if it does, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people will die and flee.
A real war will be going on there, one that we have kept under wraps because we are there.
And while it's under wraps, trying to get these Iraqis to work together to avoid having it happen.
Now, by the way, we've been successful with the Kurds.
Do you understand that the Kurds are the third party there in Iraq?
The Kurds have simply dropped all this business about they're going to have an independent nation, they're going to declare war on Turkey, they're going to have an independent nation in Iran, they're going to do their own thing, their Kurdistan, all that.
They have dropped it in favor of creating a part of Iraq in which there is capitalism, success, no terrorism, no bombs going off.
And this is never mentioned in the drive-by media, that one-third of Iraq that is called the Kurdish area is in fact very peaceful, very successful, very positive, and coming out of the war with a lot of enthusiasm for a free market economy.
Now, of course, that's a success part of Iraq, and we never want to talk about that.
But that, of course, is never in Carl Levin's thinking.
Richard Lugar, even in the Washington Post this morning, urging the president to reach out to the Democratic leaders in Congress, seek bipartisan legislation on Iraq.
But then when asked on CBS's Face the Nation whether a resolution repealing the president's authority to send troops would stand much chance in the Senate, he had to admit, and again, polling numbers are coming into play here.
Here's what he said.
I don't believe that it does, and I think the president would veto it, and the veto would be upheld.
Thank you very much.
Exactly right.
This nation is not prepared for defeat in Iraq.
This nation is prepared for a more rapid victory and a better definition of what that is and how we get there and how we get there pretty darn quick.
And that's why this change of policy, which is going to, which so far, by the way, has produced this stunning non-news, when bombs don't go off, there's no article in the New York Times because they've got the headline.
Bomb goes off, kills, and then fill in the blank, number of people.
That's the only headline they have for Iraq.
There's no stories about Kurdistan.
There's no stories about down where the Brits are, where that's also a very peaceful area.
There are stories about Baghdad.
Now, when Baghdad gets more peaceful, then they have a whole bunch of problems.
They have to do something.
So today, the New York Times filled in with, quote, al-Qaeda chiefs are seen to regain power, unquote.
Washington, Dateline, Washington, February 18th, quote: Senior leaders of al-Qaeda operating from Pakistan have reestablished significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border.
So, in other words, here, oh, okay, there's no bad news in Iraq, boop, there's got to be bad news in Afghanistan.
Because we can't go to good news in Somalia or in any of these other places where the American idea is winning.
No, no, no, we've got to find the bad news.
That's the only news, the only news we will tolerate until there's a Democrat president.
Which led to a column that I read over the weekend.
Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times, who says, you know, maybe, and there's a drift of this through the, he says, through the rafters of the conservative House.
Maybe a Democrat, this is the same we heard before the November election last year, maybe a Democrat, he says, should win in 2008.
He says, I don't believe in this, not yet.
Not yet.
But he says, if you believe the war on terror is real, then you think that it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House.
So maybe what we ought to do is force a Democrat.
Imagine Barry Obama trying to confront this, or Hillary Clinton, or whoever.
A real attack, a continuum.
Bush has kept him from attacking us for what?
Six years, nearly.
So this idea is circulating.
So it's a siren song of an idea.
Because the problem, of course, with it, there are many problems, but one of the problems with it is I think there's a lingering doubt in most Americans' minds as to whether or not a Democrat commander-in-chief faced even with an attack would defend this country.
I think there's a whole lot of doubt whether Democrat commander-in-chief would continue to respect the right in this country to opportunity, private property, and a capitalist way of life that we would transform pretty immediately into a socialist backwater for most of these people.
By the way, on March 17th, just because the lunatic left is pushing Mirtha and the rest of these guys in the direction that I've been describing, there'll be a rally in Washington, D.C. on March 17th.
A lot of leftist groups are going to, and anti-American Islamic groups and so forth, anti-war groups are going to meet at the Vietnam War Memorial and march to the Pentagon.
What is going on behind the scenes, and I don't think has been revealed until I'm about to say it, a group called the Gathering OF Eagles has called for all Americans interested in safeguarding the Vietnam War Memorial to meet in Washington and to form a protective ring around the Vietnam War Memorial and to form a counter-demonstration to these Anti-American folks whose continuous call is for the defeat of the United
States.
States.
Now, what are the polling results saying about your top concerns?
The Harris poll asked a cross-section of U.S. adults, over 1,500, not voters, adults, and there's a different group, that what is a major threat to the United States as you see it over the next five years.
You will be, I think, interested in the results of this poll when we come back.
I'm Roger Hitchcock in for Rush, who will be back tomorrow.
I'll be back right after this.
Here we go at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
He'll be back tomorrow.
He's going to be okay.
A little cold is persisting, but he's going to be okay tomorrow.
In fact, I think he's probably listening to the show going, I'm okay today.
Why aren't I there?
But you know how he is.
He likes to do this show, and he loves to do this show because every day there's something we need to get into and understand.
This Harris poll, for instance, is just chock full of information that is appalling in a way, but informative in a way.
1,500 people, Harris says it's a cross-section of U.S. adults, asked what would be a major threat to the United States in the next five years.
Only two got more than 50%.
Only two threats.
They are: first, 55% of all adults think it extremely or very likely that a large number of illegal immigrants coming into this country would be a threat.
55%.
The number one threat to this country, according to this poll, is illegal immigration.
Number two, 52% of adults believe that a significant loss of jobs to foreign countries would be an extremely or very likely threat.
Now, this has to be a learned reaction because in the real experience real world, you know, I think that unemployment, the unemployment rate, is lower than it's been in a long time.
Way lower than full employment.
Way lower than any threat that, you know, people are unemployed.
Now, I understand the economy goes through transitions.
Some very well-known old-time names go out of business, some new names come into business.
I mean, 15 years ago, where was Yahoo and Google, and for that matter, 20 years ago, Microsoft.
In other words, I understand that there's a whole lot of new jobs being created, a whole lot of old jobs that have been destroyed as capitalism works.
Capitalism is creative destruction, okay?
Capitalism is old businesses going out of business as they no longer can compete, as they no longer can provide what people want to buy.
They should go out of business.
And then new businesses come online, leaving us with a very low unemployment rate, rising standard of living, more wealth than we ever had before, and the most successful human society in the history of the planet.
And yet, 52% think that in the next five years, the greatest threat would be a loss of jobs to foreign countries.
I don't know.
40% think that a natural disaster will destroy a major city.
A natural disaster.
Have you heard the war on terror yet, by the way?
Let me go further.
Let's see.
40% think that our energy needs exceeding our supplies is an extremely or very likely threat.
35% feel the trade imbalance is a threat.
26% think that attacks against airplanes is a threat.
24% that attack with biological weapons is a threat.
14% an attack with a nuclear weapon is an extremely or very likely threat.
So the war on terror stuff gets down into the 20 to 30 percent range with nuclear at 14 percent.
Loss of jobs to foreign countries is 52 percent.
It may be that Bush has been so successful immunizing the United States from the effects of the war on terror that we don't want to recognize that it's still there.
And yet every day in our communities, we should recognize it is still there.
They were reminded, and they're still in denial in Salt Lake City, in the mall in Salt Lake City, that the Muslim teen who opened fire was conducting his own jihad.
Suleiman Talovich, an 18-year-old Bosnian Muslim loaded with enough ammo to kill dozens of victims.
The FBI said it was unexplainable.
It is easily explainable.
He was a Muslim.
He was on a jihad.
He had gone to a mosque in which there was a radical Wahhabist Islamic preacher, an imam.
He attended Friday prayers about a block from the mall and then went on the shooting spree.
What other motive could there be?
The FBI saw no religious motive and quickly ruled out terrorism.
Let me add Mr. Talovich to the list and remind you of others in the same circumstance.
No connection.
A 30-year-old Muslim man, Navid Afzal Haq, went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle announcing, quote, I'm a Muslim American, I'm angry at Israel, unquote.
An Egyptian national, Hasham Mohamed Hadayet, shot two and wounded three at an Israeli airline counter, a ticket counter at LAX.
A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Henricks, who blew himself up with a backpack full of explosives outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque.
A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening, and he went to a local mosque afterward.
Then, of course, John Mohammed and Lee Malvo, the black Muslim converts, the D.C. snipers, picked off 13 people around the beltway.
Mohammed described it as, quote, a prolonged terror campaign against America, unquote.
Omid Aziz Popal of Fremont, California.
Police said he hit and killed a bicyclist with his SUV, then took it on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon he said that he was a terrorist.
A 22-year-old Muslim, Ishmael Yassin Mohammed, stole a car in Minneapolis, rammed it into a lot of other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, repeatedly yelling, die, die, die, kill, kill, kill, all he said on orders from Allah.
It goes on and on.
Do you see a trend here the FBI does not see?
Now, not all young Muslim men are to be treated as terrorists or suspects.
I'm trying to make that point strongly.
But let me just say that the ones who are influenced in these hate-filled mosques all over our country are going out and murdering Americans after they hear what they hear.
I like Prime Minister Howard of Australia.
He wants to deport him.
So do I. Back after this.
I know, I know.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires presidents be natural-born Americans.
I know.
And Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, was born, in fact, in Sydney, Australia.
But weren't not for that detail.
This man would be a Reagan successor.
All of you thought Ron Paul would be your choice in the Republican primary.
May I offer John Howard?
I know, not eligible, but still.
Here's a guy who actually was willing to tell the truth about Barack Obama, about Barry Obama, and the quote about favoring a pullout from Iraq.
And Howard suggesting that al-Qaeda should be praying for Obama and the Democrats to win next year's presidential election.
Because, of course, it would be a cheap victory for them, a cheap victory for our enemies.
We would simply pull out if Obama is followed.
Now, down in Australia, there was a huge storm about this.
He's the head of the.
Howard is the head of the Liberal Party.
The Labor Party had a motion to censor the Prime Minister, Mr. Howard, and offered him a chance to apologize.
In other words, maybe you were just out of your head or an American-style liberal, and therefore you need rehab and an apology, and you'll be okay.
We'll give you that chance to get things right here.
And this is what Howard said.
This is a quote.
It should be emblazoned on your.
This is political courage.
This is a Reagan-esque quote.
Here's the Prime Minister of Australia.
Quote: I don't apologize for criticizing Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong, unquote.
You got to love that.
Honesty, integrity, a backbone.
And by the way, this is the guy I was talking about at the end of the last segment here.
This is the guy that said, look, if you want to come down here and preach hate and some radical Islam, you're not going to be here.
You're out of Australia.
He said, you come here to Australia, then you're going to embrace Australian values.
You're going to speak English.
You're going to treat women as equals, not as disposable subjects in a male-dominated society.
You're going, in other words, to be in Australia, not in your own little Islam.
We need more leaders like that, not fewer.
Meanwhile, while you all think that illegal immigration might be the biggest issue in the next five years, according to the Harris poll I was quoting in the last segment, the United Nations has other ideas.
In fact, Reuters is reporting that the biggest threat by 2036 to Earth is an asteroid.
And that, more importantly, not only should we be concerned about an asteroid hitting the United States, but we should have the United Nations assume responsibility for a space mission to deflect or defeat in some way this asteroid.
Ladies and gentlemen, the asteroid in question is named Apophis.
It has a 1 in 45,000 chance of striking the Earth.
The date, according to astronomers, would be April 13th, 2036.
Now, I will tell you why this is never going to happen.
This asteroid is not going to hit the Earth.
And it's not because the United Nations is going to be successful in mustering the Earth's resources to defeat this.
It's because this asteroid is supposed to, if it's going to strike the Earth, strike it on April 13th, 2036.
That's two days before the tax returns are due for 2036.
There's no way.
No asteroid is going to get between the IRS and your paycheck.
It's just not going to happen.
It's not that powerful.
1-800-282-2882.
Here's John in Crofton, Maryland.
Hi, John.
Welcome to the Russ Show.
Hey, Doo, Roger.
I think you already got into some of this, what I'd like to discuss.
But last night I was watching this show and they were talking about autism, and I was kind of dozing off.
And then I woke up in Utopia, where zero Americans have been killed.
They love the United States.
We have like 60 or 70 troops there.
You don't have to wear a flak vest.
You can go out in public.
There are hordes of people in shopping centers.
There's a building boom.
There are these giant cranes everywhere.
Everybody's employed.
The girls dress like American college girls, even better.
They have an elected leader who speaks perfect English, and they're just so happy.
And it's just the picture of success.
You know, everybody's saying, well, how do we know when we have success in Iraq?
Well, this is success.
Iraq.
Now, where is this wonderland?
It's Kurdistan.
Northern Iraq.
It's amazing when people do what they're supposed to do and cooperate, what, you know, the results are.
And you have a utopia up there, zero Americans guilt.
And this is Bob Simon of 60 Minutes last night.
I couldn't believe it.
I can't believe it either.
I can't believe it either.
They must have just had so few bombing stories to report.
They actually had to do some good news.
Thanks, John.
I appreciate the call.
And here's, by the way, here's this in the New York Times also today, contrary to my sweeping generalizations of earlier in the program that they never pronounce good news about Iraq or any portion of it.
This is good news, and it may be that they didn't realize at the New York Times what good news it is.
Karabila, wherever that is, here's the article.
In a remote patch of the Anbar desert, just 20 miles from the Syrian border, a single blue pillar of flanges and valves sits atop an enormous deposit of oil and natural gas.
Now, that would be routine in this petroleum-rich country, talking about Iraq, except for one fact.
This is Sunni territory.
This has been a stumbling block because the Sunnis have not had, the Sunni area is not where the oil is.
The Shia area is where the oil is, generally speaking.
And this has been a part of this conflict because, as Secretary of State Rice pointed out over the weekend in Baghdad, you've got to come up with a formula to share equally the bounty of oil sales with every Iraqi, regardless of their religious persuasion.
They still haven't done that in the Iraqi government, and it's one of the reasons the Sunnis are still exploding bombs because they feel like they're going to get the same treatment at the hands of the Shias that, well, they used to meet out to the Shias when they were in charge.
So until somebody convinces them otherwise, that they're going to be treated fairly, this is the problem.
The biggest problem today in American politics, however, is not how to expand the success in Iraq from Kurdistan to these other regions, not how to use the oil revenues to buy an equitable share and therefore a peace.
No, it's whether or not Hillary Clinton will apologize for her vote authorizing military action in Iraq.
This has become the litmus test for the lunatic left.
Will she apologize for a vote that was taken by the senator, as she herself has said, in good faith based on the information available, based on her, and this is what she said, based on her talking with national security experts from the Clinton administration.
She did not trust George Bush.
She went to Madeleine Albright.
She went to Sandy Bergler.
She went to the Clinton people and said in 2002, what do you think?
What's he got?
And they all said he's got weapons of mass destruction.
We've been hearing this.
We've been documenting this.
That's why in 1998, we had this regime change resolution in the first place.
We understand.
In other words, it wasn't just George Bush and the strings coming out of his suit being manipulated by Cheney Halliburton and Big Oil.
No.
Contrary to the George Soros image of the world, the truth is she did her homework.
Hillary Clinton consulted with the left.
And in 2002, the left and George Bush agreed.
Now the left is saying, you've got to apologize for that vote to be a credible candidate in the Democratic primaries.
You have to apologize.
Now, of course, Hillary being Hillary and a politician, what she is doing is she's saying, Well, I'm not going to apologize because I did on the best information then.
If only I knew now what I didn't know then, and blah, blah, blah.
So she's trying to dance on it.
It isn't working.
So now, over the weekend, she said, Well, all right, look, I'm going to beat, I'm going to raise the ante.
I'm going to raise the ante in this poker game.
Barry Obama, whatever, is the professor, you know, is running and he's saying, I'm going to pull out by March of 2008.
By golly, I'm going to pull out in 90 days.
There, top that.
So I fully expect a couple of days from now, Senator Obama will have a speech in which he'll say, I'm going to pull out in 60 days.
So we're rapidly getting into that kind of lunacy between these guys who are running.
Now, let me be quick to support what George Will has written: that America's political marketplace is working.
We are getting candidates.
We are getting a lot of candidates.
The Republicans, who everybody's written off they're going to lose 2008, have more candidates than the Democrats.
More people wanting to be the Republican nominee.
Why?
Because, well, if things start to work out in Iraq, who do you think is going to win this election in 2008?
See, that's where is at stake.
A victory is going to mean the Republicans win.
And this idea of using denial of funds by the Congress to express itself on and influence events as they did in Vietnam and Nicaragua and so forth after the Marine Barracks bombing in 83 in Beirut, that is not going to be seen as good for America.
In fact, of course, the Democrats are, the really thinking Democrats are really terrified of this because the McGovernite votes back in the 70s and who lost Vietnam and all that stuff in 83 and all the stuff with the Nicaraguans, because Nicaragua, again, was a Reagan victory.
You remember the Democrats sided with the communists, Ortega and his group, the Sandinistas.
Republicans sided with the Contras.
Contras won.
Case closed.
Democrats, again, against America, in favor of the communists, in favor of the tyranny of Ortega.
And the voters of voters of Nicaragua?
No.
Not until Ortega turned into a born-again Democrat.
I'll never use force.
I'll never confiscate more property.
I promise to be a middle-of-the-road guy.
And blah, blah, blah.
Did he get elected this last time with, by the way, 34% of the vote?
Democrats are terrified of a replay of this, of being on the wrong side, of losing the war, of being seen as anti-American, because now the cumulative evidence in every little skirmish from Vietnam to today is that they are on the wrong side.
They are against America.
That's who they are.
I'm Roger Hitchcock, Infer Rush.
Back with your call after this.
A young woman about to finish her first year of college, considering herself a very liberal Democrat, very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth, of fairness, deeply ashamed of her father, a staunch Republican, a feeling that she had no qualms about expressing to him.
And they were chatting, talking about, she was talking about the lectures that she had heard at college in her first year, and that she was very unhappy about her father as a Republican because of his evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought was his in violation of other people who were poor and needy.
And she challenged her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and supported, as she supported, government welfare programs for fairness for the poor, for the oppressed.
And he responded by asking her how she was doing in school.
And she was kind of taken aback.
She said, I'm doing great.
I got a 4.0.
It's tough to maintain it, she says.
I've taken a very difficult course load.
I'm constantly studying.
I've got no time.
Actually, I can't even party like other people that I know.
I don't have time for a boyfriend.
I don't really have many college friends.
I've spent all my time studying, but I'm really proud.
I got a 4.0.
And her father then asked, How's your friend Audrey doing?
Oh, Audrey, she's barely getting by.
All she takes are the easy classes.
She never studies.
She barely has a 2.0 GPA.
Now, she's popular.
College is a blast for her.
She's invited to all the parties.
And lots of times she doesn't even come to class because she's so hungover.
And her father says, Well, why don't you go to the dean's office, ask him to take 1.0 off your GPA and give it to Audrey, who only has a 2.0.
And that way you will both have a 3.0, and it'll be fair, and it'll be a fair distribution of your GPA.
What?
The daughter says, What?
That would not be fair.
I've worked really hard for these grades.
I've invested a lot of time and a lot of hard work, and Audrey's done next to nothing.
She played while I worked my tail off.
The father looks at her and smiles and winks and says gently, Welcome, girl, to the Republican Party.
Here's Jim in Atlanta, Georgia.
Jim, welcome to the Rush Show.
Hey, Roger, that's Rebellion Observation.
It's a great pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you.
My comment today is about the Democrats who support the troops, but not the commander-in-chief or reinforcements.
Their latest mantra is that 20,000 troops can't make a difference.
History is full of examples of where 20,000 or less have made a difference.
And just a quick example that I'd like to point out: during the planning for the Normandy invasion D-Day during World War II, the Allies expected to find 8,000 low-morale Polish POWs manning the guns on the Normandy coast.
During the last hours, Rommel moved two divisions of his Spanish Corps to man the guns, roughly 20,000 men, 20,000 extra Nazis of the coast, and we saw what difference it made.
Yep.
Well, you know, the problem is, Jim, that you and I know history.
A number of other people know history.
Lots of people understand that you can learn from these kinds of examples in today's headlines.
But because of that, the K-12 system in this country is geared to producing graduates from our public schools that don't know history, that don't have any idea about this country or about these famous instances in which 20,000 troops, in fact, could make a huge difference.
I appreciate your remembering.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back tomorrow.
And don't forget, up on RushLimbaugh.com, they've got now the video from the half-hour news hour from Fox News from last night.
And we'll be back with more after this.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
Thank you, Rush.
And Rush will be back tomorrow, of course.
Fit as a fiddle.
I'll tell you, this sudden jihad syndrome has struck again.
32-year-old Mohamed Abdurrahman out of Mauritania on an Air Mauritania jet, the Boeing 737, pulled out his pistol suddenly.
I mean, he'd been a peaceful Muslim boy before that, just a goatherder in Mauritania, just a fine young man.
He pulled out his gun and demanded that the jet fly to Paris.
They landed instead in the Canary Islands.
The pilot realized that the hijacker didn't know French, so he comes on the intercom, says, I'm going to jam on the brakes when we land.
This guy's going to go, you know, head over heels.
Get on it.
Well, the stewardess has had boiling water at the moment of the impact.
They poured it on him.
The crew and passengers jumped on this guy and they subdued him.
They've become minor heroes in their own country.
Again, the police investigating, however, said, Well, it was inexplicable.
It was unexplainable.
I have no idea why this young Muslim man would have done something like this.
It couldn't possibly have been terrorism.
It is, of course, as we know, sudden terrorism syndrome.
It strikes when you least expect it.
Get ready, because the FBI will deny it is terrorism.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
I want to get to what's happening on the border and the latest with our Border Patrol agents who are in jail on the word of an illegal alien drug smuggler and the kind of what's going on with Bank of America, who wants to give credit to illegals who don't have to produce any ID.
▲
Export Selection