All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
May 1, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show are right according to a consensus of the American people.
Therefore, this is your source authority for what's right in American media.
If you deny that, then you are a rush denier, Rush Limbaugh.
That's me, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling maha-rushy, here at the Distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And the phone number, if you'd like to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has dropped the use of her maiden name, Rodham, in her bid for the Democrat presidential nomination.
Mrs. Clinton identifies herself as Hillary Clinton in her campaign press releases and on her campaign website.
The lone mention of her maiden name is in a campaign biography that says Hillary's father, Hugh Rodham, was the son of a factory worker from Scranton.
She continues to use Hillary Rodham Clinton in New York-focused press releases and in the Senate, though.
She appeared surprised last week when asked why her presidential campaign had dropped her maiden name.
She laughed.
You know, the laugh of the Arkansas broadbeam.
She shook her head and she said, well, I haven't.
I haven't.
And then she ran off.
Howard Wolfson, top communications advisor to Clinton Inc., downplayed any significance to the change.
Asked if it was strategic to drop Rodham.
He said, that's a fair question, but there's no plan behind it.
I will guarantee you it's polling.
I will just guarantee you that it's polling.
There are no coincidences, folks.
And especially, there are no coincidences with the Clintons.
I mean, there's so many things look like coincidence, but there's no coincidence.
Now, how about Carl, what's his name?
Bernstein.
How about Carl Bernstein's book?
From the Times Online in the UK, drawing on a trove of private papers from Hillary Clinton's best friend, the legendary Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, is to publish a hard-hitting and intimate portrait of the 2008 presidential candidate, which will reveal a number of discrepancies in her official story.
Bernstein has spent eight years researching the unauthorized 640-page biography, A Woman in Charge, The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Well, now, isn't this convenient timing?
That the book happens to come out now and not in the midst of the actual campaign, but now.
What I am warning you people of is to not be fooled by this.
For example, how is it that Carl Bernstein gets these secret files?
Why all of a Carl Bernstein who can't get anything published these days?
How does he end up with them?
And if you read excerpts, yes, you'll find out that she's told some whoppers and she's told some lies and maybe some of her histwa doesn't match with what she has said.
But his conclusion is, so what?
It's not that big a deal.
I'm going to tell you what, I think this is a total put-up job.
I think Bernstein was given this job by Clinton Inc. to get the skeletons out of the closet for everybody to see.
I mean, how did he get the private papers nobody else has been able to get?
How did that happen?
So Bernstein goes about the task of in the same book, accusing her of lying about almost everything and then exonerating her in the book, by the way.
And this is the ploy that Hillary has used for decades.
She wants to get rid of all of her skeletons so that she has to address them and then be done with it.
And again, what better time to do that now than in the primaries?
What better way to address any accusations than to say, look, we've been there and done that with Carl Bernstein's book.
You know, these things, if they surface again after she gets the nomination, oh, here goes the Republican attack machine just recycling a bunch of old news.
This was in Carl Bernstein's book a year ago.
Can't we move on?
Can't we stop the politics of personal destruction?
Can't we just move on?
The thing about Mrs. Clinton is that everything is a lie.
I mean, well, everything is a lie.
Nothing is as it seems.
Let's just put it that way.
Nothing is as it seems with the Clintons.
And I think this book is probably part of that reality.
For example, here's a story by Ann Kornblut, The Washington Post today, Clinton's power pointer.
And this is all about Mark Penn, who is the pollster.
And here's the poll quote from this story: Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate.
Well, now, isn't that great?
So if you are basically devoid of substance, if you, if by that I mean you're not going to pin yourself down on anything because you're going to wait for what the polls say, then doesn't it make perfect sense that a pollster would be your primary architect of your message?
If you are going to make yourself devoid of substance and ideas, then anybody can come along and fill you up.
So a Mrs. Bill presidency promises a return to be run by polling.
Just like Clinton's, I mean, he would poll what to wear on vacation.
He'd poll where to go on vacation.
People are elected to do more than follow the whims of public opinion, at least they were.
But, you know, given that we're in the age of terrorism now, we all know what happened because Bill decided it wasn't politically advantageous to confront the terrorist threat.
Didn't want those poll numbers going down.
Didn't want to take on any real tough issues because didn't want to risk that 65% approval rating.
Now, over the years, ladies and gentlemen, you know, I've been a very loud critic of polling.
And what my basic beef has been is that the drive-bys use polling basically for two reasons: A, they're lazy, and B, they go out and use polling to create news.
Every poll is presented as a news story.
But I think polling also is a way to get what would be on the editorial page of a newspaper onto the front page.
A poll done with the drive-by media is the best way to advance an agenda and make it look like it's just a news story.
You got an agenda, you're the drive-bys and Democrats.
You have an agenda.
You come out with a poll that shows the majority of Americans happen to agree with your agenda.
Well, bam, good for you.
But I think it's worse now than just a bunch of lazy journalists and just driving an agenda.
And everybody thinks George Bush today is stupid.
I mean, if you have a poll out there that says the majority of the American people wonder about Bush's intelligence, well, then by gosh, he is.
And the drive-bys can hide behind that.
And the Democrats can hide behind it.
It justifies them to behave like Harry Reid does.
And Bush is an idiot.
Why is absolutely stupid?
Why do the American people think so?
We got a poll that says so.
Harry Reid looks at the poll.
Well, Bush is an idiot.
I'm safe.
I can go say so myself.
Everybody thinks we're going to die next week from global warming.
It must be true.
If polling data, there was a story in the New York Times last week.
Public shifting now.
Many, a majority convinced global warming is a problem, but not sure what to do about it.
Okay, well, it's over.
The issue's over.
The American people agree that global warming is going to kill us tomorrow.
If not tomorrow, next year.
And if not then, the next decade.
And if not then, certainly by the end of the century.
But if the American people agree, well, that's it.
There's no more story.
It must be true.
If you don't believe that, when you're confronted daily with one poll after another, you're going to eventually be swayed to think it.
If you don't think that global warming is a problem or that Mrs. Clinton's the greatest thing since sliced bread, after repeated polls and polls and polls and the American people, you're told in a poll, the American people think X, Y must be true.
And I'm not that smart, you say to yourself.
Most people think everybody else is smarter than they are.
Well, I must be missing to those.
People are right.
It must be true.
So, we got global warming.
We have to act.
The American people say so.
It must be true.
Very sly, ladies and gentlemen.
Sort of like smoke.
You don't realize you're overcome until it's too late.
Sort of like being put in a vat of cold water, and they turn up the heat.
Starts boiling.
By the time you're cooked, it's too late to get out of there.
You know the old story with the frog.
But it's tricked now, and it's not just for the creation of news and driving an agenda.
It is to provide almost an authoritative conclusion to the question of any issue.
Is there global warming?
Well, the American people say so.
It must be true.
Bush stupid?
Well, the American people say so.
It must be true.
President Clinton's 65% approval rating, the most popular president.
Must be true.
People say so.
We've got to get out of Iraq now.
It's a lost cause.
It must be true.
The American people say so.
So that's how these polls are being used.
And that is exactly what Mark Penn is doing for Mrs. Bill Clinton.
She's out there.
She's going to adopt.
She's like an empty fuel tank, and he's putting the fuel in there.
Whatever the public says is what she's going to be.
The American people say so.
I must be right.
I must be the presidential candidate of your choice.
Back in just a second.
And we're back.
Couple audio soundbites here.
This is Barack Obama.
This is yesterday, the first AME church, South Los Angeles.
And, well, just listen.
This is what he said.
Why is it we can find the money in a second for a war that doesn't make any sense, but we can't find the money to take out the bullet of poverty in this country and stitch up our community so every child has a chance at a decent life.
Come on, Barack.
You're going to have to do better than this.
Libs before you came along and said we've got to get rid of the NASA budget.
We've got to get rid of the defense budget.
We need to spend more money on poverty.
We need to spend more money on education.
We need to spend more money on whatever.
And the amount that we spend on poverty, the amount that we spend on education, the amount we spend on social programs would dwarf the defense budget.
Who draws a check from the government?
Half the country says right.
Half of this country now draws some kind of check from the federal government.
But we're not spending enough money.
The more I hear of Obama, the less I think he's going to provide big trouble for the Clinton Inc. machine.
This guy's, he does maybe down the road, but he doesn't have enough experience yet.
And I'm just telling you that the I'm not saying he's an intellectual light.
We don't have experience.
This is all tired, worn-out stuff.
We've been deflecting this since the 70s.
They tried this with Reagan in the 1980s.
This is old stuff.
I mean, it certainly isn't new and unique, and all these adjectives applied to Obama.
But my only point is that this is the best he's got.
Anybody thinks that the Clinton ink gang in the war room down there in the bunker is going to be intimidated by this guy?
They're going to be content to let this guy rise to whatever heights because it'll allow Mrs. Bill Clinton to destroy him and show she can overcome obstacles and avoid being the candidate of inevitability.
Now, you all know that Jack Murthy went absolutely nuts and started calling for Bush's impeachment all over again.
He was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, who said, now, are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of this president, Congressman?
What I'm saying, there's four ways to influence the president.
And that's one of his impeachment, and that's an option that is on the table.
I'm just saying that's one way to influence the president.
The other way is the purse.
And the purse is controlled by the Congress who's elected by the public.
In the last election, Public said we want the Democrats in control.
Sounds to me like he's backing away from this impeachment business.
In fact, Meredith Vieira today on the Today Show said, you dropped the impeachment word and referenced how Congress could influence the president to some it sounded like a veiled threat.
Is impeachment really on the table?
Oh, we hope it is.
We hope it is.
Are you seriously considering it?
I'm getting twice as many calls as I got just a few months ago about impeachment.
Are you seriously considering it, sir?
No, I just think that's one of the options.
The real option here is the power of the purse.
Ha ha!
I was right.
It's just a joke.
He's not seriously considering it.
And enough time.
Yeah, he didn't eat there.
There are four ways.
That's right.
He said two.
There's the impeachment and there's the purse.
The purse is.
Well, I think one of them, the election, I think elections are another way to control the president is what he meant here.
But there's still a fourth that wasn't mentioned.
It might be illegal, so we won't go there.
Sam in Princeton, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Sam?
Testing.
One, two, three, four.
Sam, wake up.
He's East Wai.
Who we got next here?
Elspurd Bose, Somerset, Pennsylvania.
Says, Harry, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Yeah, Rush.
I finally saw in print the number of enemy dead in Iraq in an op-ed from General Barry McCaffrey.
Approximately 20,000 dead and 27,000 being detained.
Makes you wonder what sort of metric Harry Reid uses to declare defeat.
Well, how many of those 20,000 dead are combatants and how many are innocent Iraqi citizens that Bush napalmed?
This says 20,000 armed fighters.
Okay.
Well, we got Libs in the audience, and I just wanted to ask the question that they would ask you.
27,000 detained, huh?
Yes.
Speaking of which, you know, last week the Saudis announced that they'd arrested 144 people that were going to blow up the oil fields, terrorists and so forth.
And I asked some very salient questions back then.
We don't know if this is true.
This is Saudi saying.
So where is torture used?
Have they been given the right to an attorney?
You know, they just make all this stuff up against these guys.
And the questions that would be asked about us if we announced this kind of capture, I don't think the questions are not being asked of the Saudis.
In fact, one question is, those guys still have heads.
Anyway, so Harry Reid's definition of failure.
I'm going to tell you what it is.
Harry Reid's definition of failure is anything George Bush is in charge of.
It's all pure politics.
Here's a great example of drive-by media behavior.
I have a headline here.
This is from the BBC.
I want to read you the headline.
I want to ask you what you think this story might be about.
Leaked Bush memo aimed at Kerry.
What's that sound like to you, Mr. Snerdley?
Leaked Bush memo aimed at Kerry?
Why, it sounds to me that somebody came across a memo that Bush wrote that was aimed at destroying John Kerry, right?
It's the exact opposite.
The story is the exact opposite.
Headline sounds like Bush leaked a memo aimed at hurting Kerry, not the other way around, which is actually the case.
A civil servant who leaked a secret memo about Bush wanted it to be seen by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, the Old Bailey, which is a big courtroom in London, heard David Keogh, 50 from Northampton, said to have passed a highly sensitive document detailing talks between George Bush and Tony Blair to Leo O'Connor.
Mr. Keogh told jurors the contents of the memo had preyed on his mind.
Mr. Keogh and Mr. O'Connor, 44, also of Northampton, deny three charges under the Official Secrets Act.
Now, the main person in my mind was John Kerry.
I wanted John Kerry to get this memo.
He admitted that he had unfavorable views on Bush, but did not think the publication of the document would have any damaging effects to Britain's defense or international relations.
That's, you know, local story from the UK, but this headline, leaked memo, leaked Bush memo aimed at Kerry.
It was just the opposite, just the other way around.
Kathleen in Canton, Michigan.
Welcome to the EI.
Are you 12 years old?
Am I reading that right?
Yes.
Hi, Kathleen.
Well, it's great to have you with us today.
Hello, Bush.
I called you.
It's great to speak with you.
Thank you.
My question is, when Clinton was in power, there were multiple terrorists attacked on the United States.
Why didn't he try and stop them?
Well, they did in their own way.
They tried to use the legal system, but they were never really serious about doing anything about preventing future attacks.
And they never responded militarily to attacks until late in the term, second term, during the impeachment scandals.
I'll tell you what, I have to ask you a hold on.
I misread the clock when I took your call, and I thought I had a minute more than I do.
Can you hold on for a couple of minutes?
Yes.
Good.
Thank you.
Because I'll be happy to try to explain this to you.
12 years old from Canton, Michigan.
You're not in school today?
I'm schooled.
Oh, okay.
Homeschool explains a lot.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Happily, folks.
So what we do here, we make the complex understandable because I know practically everything.
Rush Limbaugh, the EI.
People just staring at me in disbelief.
Even those who know me.
Skin deep.
All right, back to Kathleen.
12-year-old Kathleen in Canton, Michigan.
Yours is actually a very good question.
Why didn't the Clintons do anything about terrorism when there were attacks on this country during both terms of the Clinton presidency?
But before I answer that, I'm curious.
Where did this question come from in your mind?
What have you been doing lately studying that spawned this question today?
Well, I've been doing a lot in my history book, and I was reading about Clinton and how there were some terrorist attacks, but they didn't say exactly what they did about them.
Well, the administration did a couple of things.
The first World Trade Center attack in 1993, there was not much done on that.
However, you may have read about, I don't know, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
He's an Egyptian sheikh.
His nickname is a blind sheikh.
And he and some cronies, one of who I think was involved in the 93 blast, had evolved a plan to blow up Brooklyn Bridge and some tunnels and so forth.
And he and one of his buddies, Yamzi something, Ramzi Youssef, I think, were prosecuted, prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, and guilty verdicts were secured, and both are in jail for life.
So the Clinton administration, Kathleen, looked at terrorism as a criminal enterprise, and they dealt with it legally.
But they did a couple of things in the process that created real, real havoc.
In the process of using the legal system, you have to impanel grand juries to hear evidence.
And the evidence that was presented and presented, much of it was classified intelligence data.
Now, grand jury testimony is secret.
It cannot be revealed.
It cannot be published.
It cannot be legally released to anybody, including other intelligence agencies.
So, as an example, if the FBI is called into the grand jury to give evidence against a potential terrorist, then the CIA and nobody else could know about it.
And this was referred to as the wall that was built by the Clinton administration and an associate attorney general by the name of Jamie Gorelik that actually prevented intelligence agencies in the government from learning what each other knew, since terrorism was being prosecuted legally rather than fought on battlefields on the home grounds of terrorists.
Now, why was this?
Well, who knows?
Probably it was just the fact that the Clinton people are Democrats and did not have a serious worldview of terrorism, much like Democrats have it today.
John Edwards and his debate performance, the press conference performance last week, there's really no war on terror.
Terrorism is just something that happens.
It's out there.
We've got to be prepared to deal with it.
But to go to war against it is silly because there isn't one.
And we ought not convince the American people that they're trying to create an atmosphere people call a 9-10 atmosphere where we can pretend that life in America is just as it was before 9-11.
Well, in doing that, we had the World Trade Center attacks.
We had Americans killed all over the world in al-Qaeda bombings.
One of the popular theories to explain why the Clinton administration didn't do anything about it other than legally, which very few people saw them.
But if you go to war or if you respond to terrorist attacks militarily, everybody's going to see that.
And the Clinton administration, not big fans of the military.
The military to them was a social playground where they could try the don't ask, don't tell policy, women in combat, gays in combat, and this sort of thing.
The theory is that the Clinton administration just didn't want to risk the high approval they had.
And going to war would certainly do that, they thought.
So those are the two primary reasons.
The Clinton administration had a totally different agenda, and that was to produce a legacy of eight years of bliss, non-confrontation, harmony.
You know, we've got the Soviet Union had just gone kaput.
They had the peace dividend, and they didn't want to tackle any difficult issue that might threaten that legacy or that 65% approval rating that they had.
The only time Clinton actually did military strikes involving Al-Qaeda was in 1988 or 89 when he launched some missiles into empty camps.
Was it 88, 98?
What did I say, 99?
80.
I said 89.
No, I didn't say 89.
All right, I got verbal dyslexia.
It was 98, 99, Kathleen, that he launched the ⁇ he blew up an office building on a Saturday night in Baghdad.
I think the janitor was killed.
But nothing serious after rattling some cages.
And in fact, after 9-11 happened, there were some former Clinton administration officials lamenting that if it was going to happen, why couldn't it have happened during Clinton's presidency so that he could have had something around which to forge greatness?
Those are the best theories to answer your question.
And this call was obviously a homeschool assignment, wasn't it?
No.
No.
Well, it served the purpose of being a homeschool assignment, nevertheless.
Does that help you?
Yes, it does.
Any other questions?
Because I'm a font of answers.
Not really, but you're coming to Michigan on Thursday, and I will be there.
You will?
You're going to be in the audience?
Yes, I will.
Well, terrific.
Well, I'm glad.
This is glad to know this, too.
And I'm glad that you're going to be there.
You coming with your mom and dad?
No, just my mom.
Just your mom?
Okay.
Well, I hope you have a good time.
I'll go out of my way to make sure that you do.
Thank you.
Okay.
That's Kathleen from Canton.
Yeah, by the way, programming note, I will not be here Thursday, folks.
I've got to fly to Detroit Thursday morning.
I've got a rush to excellence performance that night for our affiliate there, WJR.
I got 2,500 people.
They sold it out in a half an hour, I think they told me.
And meeting with some of our sponsors that are headquartered in Detroit during the day, but we'll be back here on Friday.
Now, look, there's some other things in a stack of stuff I want to get to, and I referenced this earlier, but I want to give you the numbers.
This is from FT Portfolios, FirstTrustPortfolios.com.
U.S. Treasury Department reported a gusher of tax revenue last week, Tuesday alone.
And we told you about this last week.
The Treasury received $48.7 billion from individual taxpayers as their final tax payment for 2006, an all-time...
Now, I don't know about that.
I guess it could be.
But a lot of estimated payments for the first quarter of 2007 were due at the same day.
So anyway, it was an all-time single-day record, one-third higher the same day last year.
Based on information available through Friday, we estimate, this is, again, First Trust portfolios, we estimate federal receipts at about $390 billion in April.
And if true, this would be the largest tax take for any month in American history.
Up 25% versus last April, up 18% versus the previous high in April of 2001.
With incomes and profits growing rapidly, the U.S. budget deficit will fall to about $145 billion during the next 12 months.
To put this in perspective, the deficit was $455 billion as recently as three years ago.
And they're projecting it to be $145 billion at the end of this year.
Not one thank you.
Not one thank you from the government.
They never thank us for what we pay.
Not one.
You ever get a thank you note for the government?
Do you?
I don't.
Let's get another bill.
John Edwards has called for tax increases beyond tax cut repeal.
Yes.
And Bill Clinton said this, do we remember this, a Houston fundraising audience about his 93 tax increase?
I'll never forget this story.
There was one Reuters reporter in there that heard it, didn't think it was any big deal.
All the other reporters knew it was a stock speech, so they were out eating.
And in this speech, Bill Clinton said, you know, there are people in this room. still mad at me at that budget cause because you think I raise your taxes too much.
It might surprise you to know that I think I raise them too much too.
It took two days for that to get reported because the drive-bys in there didn't think it was any big deal.
John Edwards has come out and said that tax increase was chunk change compared to what I'm going to do.
Not only are the tax cuts we got not going to sunset, I'm going to raise taxes even more than Clinton did.
Why would anybody do this given this gusher of tax revenue that's pouring in now?
And we all know that it ain't tax increases that did that, Mama.
It is tax cuts that brought this about.
And of course, it's a good question.
And you have to understand, with the Democrats and taxes, it's more about total control than it is the money.
If they're going to get the money one way or the other, they have to borrow it for their programs.
They're going to get it.
It's not whether tax cuts or tax increases create more revenue.
It's about controlling us.
It's about controlling those who create wealth and what they do with it.
The primary, primary purpose of taxes is control behavior.
That is why, and I know you people, you get frustrated with me.
Rush, why don't you support this tax reform plan?
Well, I do.
I support.
But you have another thing.
If you think that members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, I don't care which party, are going to vote to give up the single greatest power they have, and that is the social architecture they can create with the tax code.
If you think they're going to give that up, then you do not understand the reason they seek the job in the first place.
It is about power.
It is about control.
If there is anything intellectually honest that people in politics ought to admit, if you need the money to run the government and if you need things and handle things for rainy day, tax cuts are the way to produce it.
It has been.
And to produce a great economy.
But none of this registers.
Certainly not with the libs.
Be right back, folks.
In fact, the right way to look at this is that there was not a tax cut.
If you want to know the truth, there were tax rate reductions which led to a tax increase.
How in the world, how else would you characterize record revenues pouring into Washington in one month?
Taxes were increased, but they were increased by virtue of reducing rates, which led to a bigger economy and more jobs and people paying taxes, more people paying taxes.
So, look, it's a semantic point, but I think it brilliantly makes the point.
The tax cut led to tax increases.
Not generally, but increases in tax revenue.
It's all in the message, folks.
Teachers leaving profession in droves.
This is from the Contra Costa Times in California.
Stephen Goyne entered teaching as a fight-the-good fight kind of guy, taking a job in East Oakland right out of college.
Yeah, he came from a family of teachers.
It wasn't even a question of whether to do that.
The question was whether to do elementary, middle, or haskrill.
But after six years in the trenches, transferred from campus to campus, forbidden from organizing field trips and ordered to teach math only after lunch, Goyne left the profession.
Now he works in real estate, runs a Brazilian jujitsu studio in Oakland.
That last year, I had enough of it.
The biggest skill you're applying is crowd control.
You're not really having a say in the curriculum or what goes into it.
Teachers stifled by bureaucracy and blocked from making decisions in their own classrooms are leaving teaching in droves, according to a new study by Cal State University's Teacher Quality Institute.
Get this.
Nearly 22% of California teachers leave teaching after only four years, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
With this type of exodus, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning projects a 33,000 teacher shortage in California by 2015.
Well, there'll probably be that many fewer students by 2015 because of global warming.
But what does this all add up to?
It adds up to, you take this guy's word for it, they're no longer teaching people how to think.
They're not teaching people how to comparatively analyze, how to gather, process information.
They're indoctrinating.
The teachers are being forced to indoctrinate.
Can't teach math except after lunch.
Guy was the I can't teach math until after lunch.
Wonder why that is.
Well, because you probably have a bigger excuse for all the failures because after they've eaten, they don't have as much energy.
They're slowing down, not paying as much attention.
You got an excuse for the failing and falling math scores.
I bet science came after lunch, too.
Anyway, it's a harbinger of things to come.
He said, we have bureaucracied ourselves to death.
Teacher and poet Paula Gucker, an Ed Fund teacher of the year, that's an award, left El Cerrito Haskruel in the West Contra Costa School District after she was ordered to teach using more excerpts rather than whole books.
I knew I couldn't be culpable in that kind of education.
She took a job teaching English at San Rafael High School, where she and her expertise is more valued and she has more input.
And they all say that had nothing to do with the pay.
Well, it's something to do with pay, but the problems extend far beyond what we're being paid.
They're being told to indoctrinate these little skulls full of mush.
Richmond Township, Michigan.
Sensitive to Michigan news, because we're heading up there on Thursday.
An SUV tried to drown a woman up there, but failed.
A woman whose SUV crashed into a Macomb County pond, trapped inside for two days before a passing motorist spotted the wreck.
Jennifer Bova of Armada Township airlifted a Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak Friday after a state trooper went into the pond and found her seriously injured inside the partially submerged Chevy Suburban.
I'd say these SUVs, we haven't had much news about them lately.
But I'm telling you, they're still on the warpath out there.
Now trying to drown a woman.
It just didn't know to go into deeper water.
Luckily, everything came out okay.
From Fox News yesterday, actually, this is from the Sunday Times of London.
I'm starting to notice that all the really good stuff's coming out of UK papers.
You've seen local American newspaper circulation numbers?
Plumitting.
Down El Tubos.
Anyway, the long and short of this next story, here's the headline, study prehistoric man had sex for fun.
They actually believed, and the anthropologists actually believed that way back in the Stone Age, sex was only for reproduction.
Honest to God, that's what they thought.
And this story is a shocker.
He may have come down from the trees, but Stone Age Man didn't stop swinging.
New research in Stone Age humans has argued that far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun.
Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism, and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties.
Anybody in the world who would believe that throughout the history of human civilization, be it Stone Age, Cro-Magnon, whatever, that sex was simply perfunctory, That's why there's nothing new.
All the debauchery that you think is out there in the country today, all of the perversion, all of whatever you think is crumbling away, it's all been done before.
And it was done back during the, you know, the Warden June days when nobody saw it, but it was all going on back then.
I don't have time for the question to start.
What's the question?
I don't haven't read the story to know what the prehistoric sex was.
Dinosaur bones.
What do I know?
One thing we know for sure, folks, and that is this.
Stone Age sex toys were cordless.
In that sense, you may have to use your imagination.
We'll see tomorrow, and look forward to it then.
▲
Export Selection