All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
September 26, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha.
How are you?
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
And that is no mean feat.
The telephone number, if you want to join us, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Now, we're talking in a break.
I was talking to Mr. Sterdley about the Soros stuff that we discussed in the last hour.
By the way, that's an investor's business daily editorial from Monday, I believe it is.
We will link to that at rushlimbaugh.com.
We update the contents of the site late this evening to reflect the contents of today's program.
But, you know, this the degree to which George Soros is involved in the manipulation of public opinion in a way that nobody can see.
Who was the name you compared him to back?
Oh, yeah, Dick Scafe.
Remember Richard Mellon Scafe back in the 90s?
How the Libs and the Democrats were just going nuts about he's funding all these groups, he's funding the American Spectator, and he's funding all of these investigations of the Clintons and so forth.
Well, everybody knew it, but he's a piker compared to what Soros has been doing for a number of years.
And of course, there's no condemnation of Soros from the left or the drive-by media or the ethics and government crowd.
None whatsoever.
Because he's doing their bidding.
He's Jack Abramoff times 100.
And Jack Abramoff reminded me of this story.
This is of all places, by the way.
This is in the Boston Globe today.
Disgraced fundraiser Norman Shu did a lot more than just pump $850,000 into Hillary Clinton's campaign bank account.
He also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for local, state, and federal candidates who have endorsed Hillary or whose support that she courted.
She had a nice little operation going.
It's just not conceivable that she's telling the truth when she said she really had no idea who Shu was because we can't vet all of our bundlers.
We simply don't have the records.
You know, Terry McCaulf went out to say, yeah, we can't do that.
I mean, there's too many of them.
We ran Shu through the computer.
Nothing showed up.
Hardy Harhar, which is not believable.
Shu has been a major fundraiser for Democrats since 2003.
He became one of Clinton's biggest bundlers, which is gathering scores of individual checks and sending them to her campaign.
But since revelations last month that Shu was a fugitive in a 15-year-old California fraud case, Hillary Clinton said she would return the $850,000 that she's taken from him and his associates.
We never get proof that this happens.
All we hear is that they say they're going to do it.
In at least some cases, Hillary Clinton or her aides directly channeled contributions from Norman Shu and his network to other politicians supportive of her presidential campaign.
This, according to interviews and campaign finance records, nothing illegal about one politician steering wealthy contributors to another, but the New York Senator's close ties to Shu have become an embarrassment to her and her campaign because she's denying that there have been any close ties.
In February, when former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack ended his own White House bid, he was about $450,000 in debt.
A month after dropping out, Vilsack endorsed Clinton, and Clinton agreed to help him retire his debts.
Both insisted, of course.
No quid pro quo.
Why would anybody think that?
No, of course not.
Over the next few months, some of the Clinton's biggest fundraisers gave Vilsack checks, including Norman Shu, who kicked in the maximum allowable contribution of $2,300 on May 3rd after attending an event organized by Clinton's campaign.
This was in Newsweek.
An associate of Norman Shu's, man by the name of Paul Sue, chipped in $1,000 on the same day.
In other cases, Hillary Clinton helped direct Shu's money to influential politicians who have yet to endorse her, but hail from key presidential primary states.
She raised at least $6,000 from Shu and his network last year for Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire.
Lynch has no plans to endorse anybody before the state's crucial January primary, according to AIDS.
Now, Clinton said in a national public radio interview last week that Norman Shu and his past was a rude awakening to all of us.
I mean, not only in my campaign, but the dozens of campaigns going back to, I guess, 2003 and 04, who, you know, took contributions.
None of us caught this, and we all ran searches.
Oh, yeah, we really tried to find out who this guy was.
We just had no idea.
Two outstanding federal warrants, and they couldn't find out who he is.
I guess you guys all had a rude awakening with Congressman William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana, too, when the 90 grand in cold cash was found in his freezer.
So it stinks to high heaven.
And I just love this.
You know, the ethics and government crowd lives out there on the left.
They don't want voter ID.
They don't want George Soros investigated or exposed for what he's doing.
And of course, they're running for the tallgrass now from Norman Shu.
And this is a lot of smoke.
And with this much smoke, there has to be some fire.
Want to get some audio soundbites in here before we go to the break.
Still sticking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, up to number 19 now, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
This was a news conference on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Harry Reed said this.
As goofy as their leader appears to be based on his speech in Columbia, I still think there are many other powers in Iran that we could be dealing with, including this character that spoke at Columbia.
But rattling sabers, I don't think, is a way to handle diplomacy.
I think the best way is to see what we can do to work something out.
And that's what I think the world community is crying for.
The world community is crying for working something out.
What are we going to work out?
The destruction of Israel might be a good start, Dingy Harry.
Promise that to Mahmoud and see how far we get.
You know, a little aside here, ladies and gentlemen, Mahmoud and his buddy up there in Syria, Basher Assad.
Those guys, you know, in truth, they're quaking in their boots.
You know, something not being said about the Israeli attack is that it succeeded.
The Syrians couldn't stop it.
And the Iranians probably couldn't stop one either.
And they know it.
And so while these guys appear to be sitting on top of the world over there and running things, don't for a minute believe that they're not quaking in their boots on occasion.
When the Israelis can pull off a raid in Syria like they did and get away with it and nobody can stop them, and nobody even knew they were coming, huh?
Dirty little secret is that these two tyrants who are now being portrayed as on top of the world and in total control of their universes are probably full of a lot of bluster, but you have to listen to it.
Nevertheless, anyway, Dingy Harry wants to sit down and talk with him, this goofy character that went to Columbia and sounded just like a Democrat.
Say I. Again, last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews talking with the Houston Chronicle's Julie Mason.
Matthews says, what was that last little kick to the midsection about that incompetent?
Who's he talking about?
He's talking about Bush, obviously.
And it's funny, you know, Bush stood up at the UN, as you know, and he pointed the moral finger.
And at least half of them are sitting there thinking gitmo.
And it's, you know, it's an easy mark for Ahmed Dinajad.
This is a Houston Chronicle reporter mocking George Bush and agreeing with Ahmedinezad for doing it.
Because while he's up there talking about morality, half the room's thinking gitmo.
That's not what half the room was thinking.
But look at who the drive-by media seems to be in bed with, seems to be so close to they can understand.
And that is the part of the world that hates George W. Bush and hates us.
Now, Nancy Pelosi melted down on CNN yesterday with Wolf Blitzer, who took her to task here because he told her that her Kuk base is really angry that the Democrats have lost to Bush.
Wolf said, you know, your base really frustrated, really angry out there.
I'm frustrated myself.
We sent it to the president.
He vetoed it.
Any further attempts to do that have been met by the 60-vote barrier in the United States Senate.
Now, I would be the last person to give you a civics lesson about what that means.
But what it does mean is that the Republicans in the Senate have now taken ownership of the war in Iraq.
It was President Bush's war, and now it is the Republicans in Congress' war.
And that marks a big turning point for us because we had hoped to have bipartisanship in redeploying the troops out of Iraq to do so in a timely fashion.
Admitting, therefore, and illustrating what I have always said, and that is it's all politics today.
It was Bush's war, not the Republicans in the Senate's war.
It's the country's war, Ms. Pelosi, and you're nowhere near it.
Anybody watching Ken Burns' PBS series on World War II called The War?
I, as a powerful, influential member of the media, got a media screener copy.
It's seven DVDs.
And I loaded them in the kaleidoscape system that I have.
And I haven't been able to watch much of it.
But the episode, you know, you do the estimated deaths in the Bataan death march.
On a low end, 6,000, on a high end, 11,000.
Do you realize the first year of the war in the Pacific theater, it was going horribly for us.
It was looking dire.
And there were no discussions of quitting and getting out and withdrawing.
And this, yeah, there's a couple little throwaway lib lines in this because it is Ken Burns.
But this is basically just actual footage in World War II and survivors talking about various aspects of the war that they were involved in.
And there was no talk of quitting, no talk of withdrawing, no talk of redeploying.
And it was going far worse than at any time in Iraq.
Back to Pelosi here.
Blitzer decided to stand up at a Kuk base.
He wasn't satisfied with that answer that you just heard.
So are you telling your angry base out there, the Democratic Party wants to see this war over with, wants to see the U.S. troops home, that you as Speaker, there's nothing you can do.
You have to just throw your hands up and say.
I didn't say that at all.
Given the legislative problems in the Senate and the President's stubborn refusal to back down, that there's nothing that you can do.
How could you have ever gotten that impression?
What I have said, for those who pay attention, is that we will hold this administration accountable time and time again for the conduct of this war in Iraq.
The meltdown begins.
She fires back at Wolf.
I've said this time and again.
For those who pay attention, it's a legitimate question from Wolf Way, but you're saying there's nothing you can do.
It's a Republicans' war.
Nothing you can do.
And of course, there is nothing she can do.
So she has to get mad at Wolf for putting it that way.
Next question.
In a Gallup poll, the last one, only 24% of the American public thinks Congress is doing a good job.
To tell you the truth, I don't approve the way Congress is ending the war in Iraq myself.
Your audience should not mistake the rating for Congress as the rating for the Democrats.
We're as high as we've ever been.
We're up 53% to 30-something for the Republicans in terms of favorability of a political party in the Congress.
And finally, Wolf says if he holds Fermi vetoes and you don't have enough to override the SHIP program, S-CHIP program, if the president holds Fermi vetoes and you don't have enough votes to override, which they don't, what happens to those 6 million or 10 million children who might need that health insurance right away?
The president gives new meaning to the biblical term, suffer little children.
This is about as deep a value, a deeply held value in America as you can have, care for our children.
And he's also made this accusation against you and the Democrats that you're looking for a political wedge, a political issue to score points.
You really don't care so much about the children.
You really want to embarrass the press.
The president doesn't think I care about children.
I have five children.
I have six grandchildren.
I took the gavel on behalf of America's children.
This president will be haunted by legislation to support America's children for as long as he is president or as long as he resists giving health insurance to America's children.
I'll put this in perspective after this commercial timeout.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back.
All right.
Let me again explain what's going on with the S-CHIP program.
The Senate is probably going to pass it and perhaps with a veto-proof margin.
It's over in the House where Nancy Pelosi can't get enough people on her side of this for a veto-proof margin.
Now, to review what this is, it's an existing program.
It provides health insurance for poor children in the country.
The Democrats have proposed rewriting it to include children up to and including the age of 25 to cover families of four with household incomes of $82,000.
And it proposes to cover all of these people with government insurance, government programs.
It is a stealth way to incrementally start the whole ball rolling on socialized medicine.
As David Hoogberg in the, I think the National Center for Policy Research calls it, socialized medicine on the installment plan.
And the Republicans, of all people, Mel Martinez had come up with a compromise in the Senate, which is actually based on a Heritage Foundation proposal.
And it has two elements.
It would reauthorize SHIP for eligible children, thereby covering children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.
And the second element is that we'd enact a child health care tax credit for families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the poverty level.
And the virtue here is that it would cover the population targeted by the Democrats, the families with incomes at or below 200% of the poverty level.
But instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage and go on a government plan, it would provide assistance to enable them to keep their current insurance plan.
And we'll see what happens.
But this is nothing more than if all they wanted to do was redo and authorize the program as it exists, nobody would really have a problem with it.
And the president wouldn't either.
But the president understands what this is and how much that it is going to cost.
And that's his primary opposition to it.
And of course, Pelosi, this is, I'm going to tell you something, folks.
You know, we've got there are 12 spending bills that have to get done by October 1st, which is when?
Monday.
And the Democrats are having all kinds of problems with nine of them.
In fact, one of them is the defense bill.
And good old Teddy Kennedy has plugged an amendment in this bill, a hate crimes amendment.
And the amendment includes gender identity as a protected class against hate crimes and even perceived gender-related characteristics.
Now, the original Kennedy language didn't go that far because it had been marked up to include that now.
But the term perceived in the amendment makes it really difficult to say that there's any class of individuals affected.
Anybody could be a hate crime victim, depending on what a judge concludes was perceived in the mind of the person at the time.
But our buddies at redstate.com have accurately pointed out here via Ed Meese at the Heritage Foundation that the hate crimes measure is unconstitutional.
Congress only has express constitutional jurisdiction over three crimes, treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas.
Because the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, Congress must find authority in other constitutional clauses to federalize particular crimes, or such acts would violate federalism principles, the 10th Amendment, or other structural limits in the Constitution.
So essentially, they're holding up the defense bill and a number of others with amendments like this, which leads me to think that maybe they don't want these bills signed.
Now, why would they not want the bills?
Why would they not want the education bill, the defense authorization bill, or any of the 10 others that fund the government starting a new fiscal year?
Why would they not want them signed?
Well, let's see.
Let's examine what one of the possibilities might be.
If none of these bills are signed, what would have to happen is a continuing resolution would have to be signed as an emergency authorization to keep the government running.
And if that didn't happen, you could get a government shutdown.
And at the threat of a government shutdown, which nobody wants, sadly, you could put in that continuing resolution a fixed withdrawal date from Iraq, say.
And force the president to veto that or sign it.
And thereby, if he vetoes it, then, of course, he's shutting down the government and doing it for the war.
And he's not getting his defense authorization budget.
There could be any number of things at work here.
But they know that this hate crimes amendment is unconstitutional.
The federal government has no power, constitutional or otherwise, to put that kind of legislation, an amendment to this legislation.
So it'll be fascinating to see what happens over the weekend here because while the Democrats are talking about we've got to get these passed, I'm not convinced that they want any of these bills signed in time for the new fiscal year.
And welcome back, folks.
I wanted you to hear a soundbite from Senator Kennedy on his hate crimes amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill.
He is equating supposed hate crimes against Muslims in America to the attack of 9-11.
This is on the Senate floor yesterday.
Since September 11th attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims.
Six, Americans of Middle East descent.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty.
They are on the front line fighting against evil and hate.
We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles here at home.
We're united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world.
We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home.
Hatred and terrorism acts committed by Americans against Americans of Middle Eastern descent and Muslims and Sheikhs, Sikhs.
Now, this hate crime amendment, normally when the Democrats attach this kind of stuff, talk about it, they talk about it in terms of women or homosexuals or what have you.
But now Senator Kennedy is implying that there are all kinds of hate crimes being perpetrated against Muslims and Sikhs and Americans of Middle East defense, the dissent in this country.
This is just shameless.
And you get back then, America is at fault.
It's America's problem.
We are bad people, and we somehow need to reign ourselves in, ladies and gentlemen, because we are the ones who need more control from the federal government to make sure that we stop acting so bad and so mean to people who have nothing but love and peace aimed at us.
Larry in Walla Walla, Washington.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, it's an honor to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you very much, sir.
Two things that I'd like to point out.
One is if people think that we should be getting out of Iraq, all they have to do is look what happened last time we moved out.
When we pulled out, there was hundreds of thousands of people killed because they helped us and because we pulled out.
You're talking about Gulf War I, you're talking about in the early 90s.
Yes, yes.
And another thing is, is if the Democrats would be behind the war, the people over there that were fighting would think that we were serious about it.
The way they're looking at it now is they're hearing half the country is wanting us to be pulled out, so all they're saying is, hey, if we stay in there a little longer, we're going to run them out because their people want them out.
But if everybody would be behind the war, they'd crumble a lot faster.
That's my feeling.
Yeah, but the Democrats, they can't, especially the base, they can't now join the victory caucus on the war.
They're too far over the cliff.
There's no turning back now.
They can't.
You know, analyzing why they want to get out of there under what circumstances would they support is moot.
There is no logical reason why they want to get.
It's purely emotional.
And the idea that they would ever become supporters of the war is also moot.
Now, if Hillary's elected and she doesn't pull the troops out, the Democrats have voted for her will support her.
But there's still going to be this kook fringe base out there that's going to be livid.
And I said earlier today, I'm not predicting it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they try to cause some trouble at the Democrat convention.
Where is a Democrat convention?
Denver?
I think it's in Denver, and the Republicans are in Minneapolis next summer.
So that way, it'll be interesting.
I think, you know, even if a Democrat's in the White House, they're so now committed to anti-war, and they don't even know why.
They just are.
I think one large part of the explanation is they just hate the military.
They just despise it.
And anytime the military succeeds, they just go bonkers.
I think the U.S. military is the focus of evil in the modern world, along with George W. Bush.
But, you know, you make a good point out there, Larry, about if we leave now, we're just going to have to go back.
We really didn't finish the job in Gulf War I.
We really didn't finish it then.
And had we, things would have been different.
And we did have to go back.
And if we don't take care of things now, we're going to have to go back at some point.
There's no getting around that unless we happen to be led by people who are going to be happy to see us defeated, which I just cannot imagine.
I don't even want to imagine it.
So we're going to have to go back if we pull out of here now.
But it's tough to speak to irrational people.
You know, it was, like I said earlier in the program today, folks, I long for the good old days when the ugly knew they were ugly and didn't try to change it.
And when the stupid knew they were stupid.
But now the stupid think they're the smartest people in the room.
You know, and it's frustrating.
You can't talk to them.
Dan in Prescott, Arizona, thank you for waiting and welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, Giga Dittos from Fly Over Country here.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, second time caller, and I just wanted to let you know my son's currently in Iraq.
He knows why we're there.
In fact, he just let me know he's reading your book, Rush is Right and wants more books like that.
So a lot of his buddies over there are appreciated.
God bless you and God bless him on behalf of all of us here.
Yeah, I just wanted to respond to your earlier caller, Jill, I think her name was.
Her from Ithaca.
Yeah, and it just irks me when they identify themselves as being an intelligent man or an intelligent woman and implying that anybody that has a different opinion or belief than what they are putting out is that we're just stupid like Bush or Reagan.
You know, it's just their usual argument.
I know it's irritating.
Arrogance is a cockiness and arrogance, condescension, or those human character traits are perhaps some of the most irritating to me as well.
Exactly.
And it just seems that they're the ones that are intolerant.
They're not open-minded.
Their idea of open debate is throwing a pie at somebody.
Oh, they live in their cocoons, and if they get offended by the truth.
Exactly.
Dan, but look, I've got this babe figured out.
You know, first of all, you've got to understand, where is Ithaca?
It's in New York.
What is in Ithaca?
Cornell.
So here's how my deductive detective-like reasoning works on this.
Jill is probably a good-looking chick.
I think, why does that matter?
Because if you stick with me here, you'll see how it matters.
She's probably a good-looking woman.
For her to spout that nonsense unchecked and unchallenged for years, it means that quite a few guys have a good reason to put up with that bilge and garbage and not argue with her.
They'll do anything to make her think she's profound to end up where they want to end up.
The words will go in one ear and out the other.
They don't care what she says or thinks.
I'm convinced because this is how she gets away with believing all this stuff for all these years.
So she goes probably, I mean, she probably goes to Cornell.
She sounded young enough to be a college co-ed to me.
And probably both men and women think that she's good-looking enough to let her think that she's profound.
Now, you might think this is sexism, and it may well be in your mind, but it's not.
This is detective work at its best, studying human nature.
I mean, this woman believes things that are 180 degrees wrong, and yet nobody has ever challenged it.
She listens to it to an audio somebody, Hillary Clinton, refuses to hear what Mrs. Clinton's saying.
Mrs. Clinton says, hey, if I'm president, I don't think I'll be able to pull out of a rock right away.
We've got a situation that's going to depend on a lot of things.
She wouldn't hear that.
So she didn't hear it.
And who wants to get into an argument if you're in college with a pretty woman?
They say, okay, this is what she thinks.
Let's go get some fries.
Or what have you.
So that's, I think, you know, we always try to explain the irrational closed-mindedness of these people.
And I think this is one of those explanations that would be difficult for anyone to refute.
Oklahoma City, this is Mark.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Rush, unlike the fake Army corporal who incidentally sounds like he's on a fast track to becoming a state senator in Massachusetts has served two terms over in Iraq and says we're doing a great work over there.
And I don't understand, Rush, why we can't see the big picture.
Republicans are seeing the big picture.
The Democrats, Biden, Hillarag, Keg Kennedy, those people, all they see is people are dying today.
The big picture is: if we don't do something, if we don't win this time, Al Sauter is going to be the leader of Iraq.
What would that mean for our people?
It would be bad for the Iraqi people.
It'd be bad for the whole Middle East because Muki Al Sadr is simply a stooge for Ahmedinezad.
He is.
And that's where he goes to seek refuge when the heat gets turned up.
He flees.
He leaves his little solder army there to take the bullets.
And he flees to Iran for safe haven and advice from Ahmedinezad and his crew.
No, you're absolutely right about this, but you're giving the Democrats too much credit.
They're not interested in the big picture.
Mark, they're not interested in it at all.
You have to understand what this is.
This is about destroying and has been about destroying the Bush presidency by engineering an embarrassing failure that is equal to defeat.
That's what this don't want to hear good news.
They're not thinking long-term consequences.
This is the ultimate me, me, me, me.
This whole circumstance that they have created here is about the Democrat Party regaining, for as long as they can hold on to it next time, their power.
Pure and simple.
Nothing else matters, especially good news out of Iraq.
That's got to be ignored, spun, changed, whatever.
Back here in just a second.
Let me just pose this thought to you, ladies and gentlemen.
If, and I predict this here at what is it, about 247 and a half on September 27, 6th of 2007, make a note.
If Hillary does become president, you watch how fast the Democrats stop introducing bills to block the war effort.
Not only will she not take us out of Iraq, they, the Democrats, will not make serious efforts to do so like they have been now.
You might have some wacko nut case like John Conyers throw something up, but I doubt it.
I don't think there would be any if she becomes pregnant.
You just watch.
You don't even need to wait.
You know I'm right.
You know it, and I know it.
Got an email here from the North Carolina mistress.
What the hell are you saying with one, two, three, four, five, six, ten question marks that men allow a good-looking woman to be stupid?
You know, I'm thrilled to get that question because I didn't know that I had the power to allow somebody to be stupid.
I thought they were stupid or not on their own.
What kind of control do you have over somebody else's intelligence?
You can have control over their knowledge acquisition and opinions, but men allow a good-looking...
One of the biggest problems good-looking babes have is they never develop their brains because they don't have to.
They get all this attention without it.
Right, Mr. Snerdley?
You have first-hand experience with this.
Oh, they do.
And that's not true.
It's not universal.
It's not universal.
But as to the concept, would men stand aside for a beautiful woman to be stupid?
Yes.
Some men.
Is no question about it all right now, those of you who are all excited about national health care we keep getting evidence from around the world, where they have it, of how dire the circumstances are after just a few years of nationalized, socialized medicine.
Here's another example.
This is from the UK Telegraph.
Pregnant women could face longer in labor under a national health service drive to reduce the high levels of epidurals and cesarean sections in hospitals, according to guidelines published by the government's health watchdog.
The guidance represents the biggest shift towards natural childbirth seen in the UK.
It says doctors and midwives should recommend that women have their labor where possible in birthing pools instead of taking drugs for pain relief.
They must also be warned of the dangers of pain-relieving epidurals.
Now, if any of you think this is all about natural childbirth and how it's preferred, stop and think again.
No intervention in childbirths unless absolutely necessary according to these guidelines.
And you know why?
Because it's too expensive.
It's too expensive for you to go to the hospital and give birth and stay there a day or two after you give birth.
Who knows whatever medical problems you encounter since pregnancy, as we all have been taught by the militant feminazis, is a disease.
So here you have the government, the British government telling a woman to forget painkilling drugs, just hop in a birthing pool.
This is like rolling medicine back to the 20th century.
Midwives, the government telling you to get you and your midwife in a birthing pool.
Don't you dare come to one of our hospitals for pain relief or an epidural.
We can't afford it.
And we don't have the room.
We got people waiting in line for new livers for six months.
You take you and your kids somewhere else.
And by the way, if you're going to do an abortion, don't come to us for that either.
Find your nearest planned parenthood clinic and leave us alone.
Well, they don't say that, but I mean, this is where this is headed.
What are you going to do?
Just give women climb down the leather straps if the pain gets too much?
Well, yeah, if we're going to go back that far, if you go back to the turn of the 20th century, whiskey on a rag whatever it takes.
But the point is, this is socialized medicine.
This is what happens.
They don't have the money for childbirth.
And they're couching this in the beauty, if you will, of natural childbirth.
So, you know, whiskey on a rag can't cost much.
Leather straps can't cost too much.
But here's the difference.
Back in the old days, we did not have the medical know-how to help women in labor.
Now we have help, but the doctors are instructed by the Hillary Clintons of the world not to use this.
Don't use it.
We don't want to spend the money on it is the bottom line.
By the way, have you heard about this giant DEA steroid raid?
You know, do you know where a lot of these steroids came from?
China.
This is right here.
Federal authorities said yesterday they had exposed a sprawling underground distribution network for steroids, human growth hormone, and other illicit bodybuilding drugs supplied by 37 companies in China.
Wonder how we found this.
Those steroids must have had lead in them.
Try this, folks, on the way out.
Burlesque is back.
And it's intellectual and political.
Even though this is in order to get burless.
You have to forgive me, folks.
I've got massive amounts of static here in my audio cable.
Just started erupting about a half hour ago.
Fans of the fancy form of strip teas that first flourished in downtown areas in the Depression are back in at least 12 cities.
And to permit it and to promote it, it's being called intellectual and political.
And it has artistic value and so forth.
It's still girls stripping.
It's still demeaning to women.
And there's still a bunch of dirty old men showing up to watch it.
See you tomorrow.
Cheerio.
▲
Export Selection