All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
October 10, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I just had to reach behind me and grab something here.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rushlin Ball, the EIB Network, and we roll on.
The third hour of our excursion into Broadcast Excellence is underway.
A reminder, I will not be here tomorrow.
I've got to go to Philadelphia.
Rush to excellence appearance tomorrow night.
And then on to New York.
Every time I mention this, Snerdley gets the most diabolical grin on his face.
Don't worry about it, Snerdley.
It's been sold out for months.
It's 2,400 people, and it's going to be a hoot.
But be back on Friday, ladies and gentlemen, from New York.
Now, I mentioned this at the top of the program, and I want to mention again, for those of you watching in the DittoCam, you can see this.
I am holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
This is a scanned copy of it, but we have the original letter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, demanding that they censure me and make me apologize for my phony soldier remark, in which they falsely smeared me as having been critical of servicemen who had come back and were disagreeing with the war when they knew full well that's not what I was doing.
I don't want to relive that whole episode.
The point is, I, El Rushbo, was not sent this letter by Dingy Harry, but I, El Rushbo, have it.
And it is signed by 41 Democrats.
On the first page, Harry Reid, Chuck Schoomer, Tom Harkin, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Bernie Sanders, the second page.
I'm not going to go through all of these, but there are three pages of signatures.
We have special plans for this letter, ladies and gentlemen.
And I just want to do it.
I can't announce those plans as we speak at the moment, but I will be able to in mere moments.
Let's go back to the subject matter from Ferris, the last caller we had in the previous hour.
He apparently went to school with Tom Freston who started MTV.
No longer there, but started MTV.
The United States Supreme Court this morning affirmed a lower court's ruling that New York City must reimburse wealthy parents who sent their learning-disabled son to a private school before trying a program offered by the public schools.
The justices issued a split 4-4 decision in the case, New York City Board of Education versus Tom Freston, meaning a lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the former Viacom chief executive Tom Freston stands.
The decision was announced in a two-sentence statement issued by the court this morning.
Because of the split ruling, the decision does not establish a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not take part in today's decision.
No explanation was given for his absence from the case.
Lawyers for New York City reacted negatively to the court's decision.
They said, we're very disappointed in a court's ruling as it detracts from Skruwell's abilities to work with parents for the best possible educational outcomes for children with disabilities, said Leonard Kerner, the chief of the appeals division at the city's law department.
Since this decision is not a precedent, which would guide all U.S. public school districts, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will resolve this important issue in the near future.
Here are the details.
1997, Mr. Freston's son, who was then eight, was found to have difficulty with reading, although not mathematics.
The city offered him a spot at Public School 77, the city's lower laboratory school for gifted education, which has classes for students with moderate disabilities.
Mr. Freston instead sent his son to the Stephen Gaynor Schruel on the Upper West Side.
The city had contested Mr. Freston's claim for reimbursement because city officials argued that the family did not give the Board of Education a sufficient chance to help his son.
While the city is legally required to pay for private programs for disabled students when it cannot provide the service itself, the city argued that Mr. Freston chose not to use the public schools and therefore was not entitled to reimbursement.
The city paid for two years at the Gaynor School, but then stopped.
A trial court ruled in favor of the city, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the ruling and ruled in favor of Mr. Freston.
An issue in the case is a 1997 congressional amendment to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regarding the disimbursement.
Now, that story came out this afternoon, a little afternoon.
If you go to the New York Post on October 7th, three days ago, a majority of Supreme Court justices appear to agree that New York City has no obligation to pay parents of special ed kids for a private school education on demand.
The city is defending itself against claims asserted by Tom Freston that special ed families should be compensated for private school expenses when they haven't even tried public school programs.
Court didn't seem to be buying it last week, and a good thing, too, if the litigants prevail, expect the numbers of allegedly disabled children to skyrocket.
Now, this is a New York Post editorial.
They clearly misread the case.
What is mysterious here is that Anthony Kennedy was not part of it.
So the point of this 4-4 decision is it's no decision.
The lower court ruling stands, which is in this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
So it boils down to this.
As I understand it, and by the way, there's another companion story that I cannot find.
Wait a minute.
Maybe I have it here.
Hang on just a second here, folks.
Yes.
Yes.
You got to hear this in just a second.
As soon as it clears the printer, because this is nothing compared to what I'm going to tell you.
But apparently, the city, you know, public schools are public schools.
You have a disabled kid, you go to public school, the public school is paid for by the state, the city, federal government in some cases, and that's that.
Mr. Freston said, nope, I want to send a special school, and they should pay, since they were going to pay anyway.
And the city said, hell no, we're not going to pay.
You didn't even try public education first.
They did pay for two years and they canceled the payments.
He sued them.
Now, to a lot of people, the issue is here, wait a minute, he's got all the money in the world.
I'm sure he got a golden parachute from Viacom that was pretty ritzy.
He didn't do too badly as the president of MTV and Viacom, or I forget what he was actually president of, but he didn't do too badly there.
So if he can afford it, why can he pay for it?
His point was, wait a minute, the law is the law here.
The city pays for disabled kids.
It doesn't say anything about income in here.
Now, you can look at it and say, well, what business isn't no different than some family that can afford health care but doesn't buy it and wants the state or the federal government to do it.
Yeah, I think we essentially do have a bit of a problem here with a sense of entitlement on the part of everybody.
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
And I worry about mob rule when 55 or more percent think that their neighbors ought to be buying their health care.
And we're heading to that number.
We're going to get mob rule.
Aided and abetted by big government socialists in the Democrat Party.
On the other hand, you do have the law here, and the guy's wealth is irrelevant to it.
He pays his taxes for those schools, but not the private school.
But he pays pays the taxes for the public schools.
He pays, believe me, pays that taxes in New York.
It's just, it's just unbelievable.
I don't know why anybody stays there.
I just, but actually, I do, but I so our caller said, will you join me in supporting Mr. Freston for simply saying, hey, just because I'm wealthy doesn't mean I shouldn't have access to the same thing everybody else has as part of law.
And, you know, it's that I totally understand the argument.
But you got to understand, Mr. Freston is a huge liberal, and you cannot take that out of the equation.
Has to be a liberal.
He wouldn't be working at Viacom for crying out loud.
You know, Viacom owns CBS.
They own MTV.
They own a bunch of stuff.
They own.
You can't, you couldn't.
You couldn't be.
You couldn't be a liberal and found MTV.
You couldn't be a conservative and found it.
You'd have to be a liberal in order to operate MTV and what it became and what it stood for and what it is now.
So he's being consistent with who he is.
Let me grab this story out of the printer back here.
This was an Andrea Piser piece in the New York Post on October the 8th, two days ago, for those of you in Riolinda.
Parents say it's harder to get into than Harvard.
It's an elite private Manhattan school that mainly takes kids of the rich, the famous, and the well-connected.
Kevin Bacon and Kara Sedgwick's son went to the Churchill School and a nephew attends.
Artist and filmmaker Julian Schnabel's son goes there.
Designer Dana Buckman wrote a memoir about her daughter's experience at the Churchill School, which caters to bright kids, grades kindergarten through 12, who've been declared learning disabled.
But the thing that separates Churchill from the Daltons and the Chapins is the price.
It's free.
Rather, you, the taxpayer, fund private education for kids whose parents can afford the freight.
Because 96% of Churchill's 405 students get their tuition, $34,000 this year, picked up by the state and city.
You buy these kids state-of-the-art facilities plus class sizes that top out at 12.
Of the 16 students whose parents write a fat check this year, most will ask for a refund and get it.
I asked Kevin Bacon to comment.
He said, no one hung up.
Schnabel didn't return a call.
Top political consultant Hank Scheinkopf, whose daughter attends for free, admitted it stinks that rich kids primarily get a gratis private school education.
What's wrong is that poor kids can't get in.
You have to hire an expensive lawyer.
I'd like to see other people have this opportunity too.
For me, the whistle was blown on Churchill by a mom whose son enrolled against her wishes.
In a fight with her wealthy Dr. X-husband to get their boy into a mainstream school, she handed me the Churchill Directory.
It reads like a society register.
For every kid on it who lives in Brooklyn, there are perhaps 20 on Park Avenue, in Greenwich Village, or on Sutton Place.
Since 1999, the number of parents who get kids diagnosed with a disability and then apply for a private school refund is up enormously.
The city paid more than $57 million for 3,675 kids whose cases were contested by the Education Department in the 05-06 school year.
Now, if you put these three stories together, you find out that there's a scam going on here with more and more parents claiming their kids are disabled to get them into this school, a Churchill school.
This is not the same school as the school with Tom Freston's kid goes to.
That's the Stephen Gaynor School on the Upper West Side.
And so the disabled children of the rich and powerful and the famous and the wealthy are having the state and city of New York taxpayers pay $34,000 a year in tuition to get them in.
And the poor can't get in.
The city is fighting against thousands of parents who never even try public schools before demanding a private school refund.
And one of them is Freston.
That's the case with multi-millionaire ex-Viacom chief Tom Freston, whose son attends another pricey Manhattan scruple.
Freston took his case to the Supreme Court on principal and won.
Lawyer Neil Rosenberg is the chief go-to guy for getting your kid into a pricey school.
Grad as he claims a 100% success rate at Churchill.
I've never had a client who presented a disability to just get the board of Ed to pay.
He also disagrees that would-be Churchill kids try public school first.
Why make their child a guinea pig?
So when you boil all this down, folks, when you boil all this down, what you have is two things.
You offer something for free, and people are going to take it.
I don't care what their income level is, they're going to take it.
If they have to run a little bit of a scam, they'll take it.
The second thing is this is happening in New York.
And these are the same kind of people who will not send their kids to the public schools, whether they're disabled or not, will not do it.
And they will fight school choice left and right so that you, who don't have the kind of money they have, do not have the same access that they do.
They want to keep it limited so that your kids are not polluting theirs by being in the same classroom.
I got to run.
A quick timeout.
Don't go away.
Grab me audio sound button number nine real quickly here before we go to the phones.
I want to play for you the gotcha question from last, well, yesterday afternoon's Republican presidential debate.
Chris Matthews says to Fred Thompson, who is the Prime Minister of Canada?
Harper.
Okay, tell me about it, Mr. Harper.
What's the relationship between?
Well, you always ignore that relationship.
But our relationship is fine.
I've never met him, but our relationship is fine.
Tell me about it.
Chris Matthews, I think for some reason, has set out to destroy Fred Thompson.
Somebody said, I forget, one of the blogs I was reading today was suggesting that Matthews may have a man crush on Fred Thompson, being facetious with the comment.
But who's the prime minister of Canada, Harper?
What kind of relationship would it have?
Well, I never met him, but we have a fine relationship.
Stephanopoulos said, if Fred Thompson had blown that question, he'd have been out of the race.
But he didn't blow it.
George, here's Brian, San Antonio, Texas.
Welcome to the program.
It's great to have you with us.
Rush, Megadittos, and thank you for all you've ever done, man.
Thank you, sir.
You've missed the hypocrisy that this Frost family is showing.
They're turning down a free government program right now, which would be public schools.
And they're choosing to put their kids in the private schools.
They'd rather pay to have a service than have the government provide.
Well, I've been reading about this.
They apparently get some tuition assistance on the private school business.
Let's see.
I'm out of their pocket.
They'd rather pay and have their kids in a private doctor to work.
Here's another question.
I mean, if you want to start asking questions about this, what caused the injuries to the kids in the first place?
I couldn't tell you right away.
It was an auto accident.
It was an auto accident.
I don't think they had automobile insurance either.
Why not?
I didn't know.
I've heard that said.
And if they didn't have, I don't know how you don't have auto insurance.
I thought that was legally required.
Maybe they're waiting.
Maybe they're waiting for the led to start bringing that into the Constitution.
We've got to have it.
Maybe so, waiting for the feds to come up with an auto insurance program.
But look, I think, folks, it is required in Maryland.
So auto insurance is required.
Yes, I've heard this, they didn't have auto insurance either, but regardless.
We're all getting sidetracked here by the Frosts and their personal economic circumstance.
They are what they are.
They're not destitute.
They certainly had the ability to buy it.
I mean, they're working for a company that doesn't offer health insurance, and it's a medical services company.
The father, I think, was, or maybe the mother.
But all of this is a sideshow.
It's a distraction.
You have to stay focused on what the Democrats are trying to do here in expanding this program and take it way beyond poor kids and take it way beyond kids.
Anybody up to 25 under the Democrat proposal, what the president vetoed would be qualified.
25 years of age.
You theoretically could have a family of four with a 24-year-old dad, a 23-year-old mom, and two kids all qualify for the poor children's health program as the Democrats have proposed it.
Especially if that family's income didn't top $83,000 a year, $82,500, I think, on the Democrats' plan.
You're covered.
And these guys, the Frost family, owned investment properties, too, so they clearly chose not to buy it.
But that's still, the point is that the Democrats trot out these two kids, fill them with words to say, attacking George Bush.
I mean, little kids go out there and say, I want children like me to be able to have the same health care opportunities I had.
Well, the implication is that this evil George Bush is going to take health care away from decent Americans like the Frosts.
Well, again, I say, time and again, the Frost family was covered as the program currently exists.
Every other family like the Frosts, believe it or not, would be covered by what the program already is.
But the Frosts were sent out there to make it look like if Bush didn't eventually sign this and we didn't get the Democrats' expansion of the program, then poor kids like the Frost kids would be left to die in hospitals with no coverage.
It's a blatant out-and-out lie and distortion.
The fact of their economic circumstances, financial circumstances, is to me interesting because it goes to show that the program's already bloated.
But the lie and the effort to make everybody believe that only the expansion would cover the Frost when they were covered as the program currently exists.
I'm going to say this as many times as it takes to sink into people because that's the lie about this.
Tickling those 88s, we're back and we've got a little news here, ladies and gentlemen.
Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat California, today denied that he is conducting or ever planned to conduct congressional investigations of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin.
And he called on the American Spectator to retract its report that he asked investigators to compile information on the popular conservative talk radio hosts.
The American Spectator report about a congressional investigation at talk radio is completely false.
Waxman said in a statement to the Cybercast News Service, there is no investigation.
Waxman was referring to a report Monday that he has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh and Hannity and Levin based on transcripts from their shows to build a case for bringing back the fairness doctrine.
When asked if there had been ideas or plans to compile reports on the talk radio hosts, a spokesman for Waxman said, no, there were not.
In his statement, Waxman called on the spectator to immediately retract the item and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused.
I think we need to investigate this.
There's obviously differing opinions here.
The American spectator claims that they stand by their source, and Waxman is denying it.
We need an investigation of this.
We need to investigate this investigation, or this alleged investigation.
I think what Congressman Waxman should do is go to the House floor with a resolution condemning the American spectator and get as many Democrats to sign, let Dingy Harry get on board as well.
So Congressman Waxman says there never was any investigation, never was any thought of any investigation.
But the spectator has quotes from these Democrat staffers, identified not by name, but the congressional staffers are saying much more than that.
The spectator reports said that, yeah, these guys, we can't keep up with them.
They need something to distract them.
Keep them uncomfortable.
So this will be, maybe some of Waxman's staff said we're going to investigate.
Waxman didn't know it for plausible deniability.
Who knows?
But this, we need to get to the bottom of this.
As I say, there needs to be an investigation.
This is, yeah, you know, I think in this case, folks, we need to look at this the way the Democrats look at such allegations and charges.
And that is that the nature of the evidence is really not material.
It's the seriousness of the charge.
That's how they looked at Anita Hill versus Clarence Thomas.
It is, remember the charge that Gary Sick made in his book, Columbia University Professor George Bush, flew to France prior to the 80 election to convince the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election.
Tom Foley, Speaker of the House, we have absolutely no indication that that happened, but the seriousness of the charge requires us to investigate.
Well, it's a pretty serious charge that the chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee is going to compile reports and conduct investigations of private citizens who work on the radio.
That's a pretty serious charge that somebody has made.
And the seriousness of the charge here needs to be what is looked at.
Anybody can deny anything and demand a retraction.
This is funny.
It's in Lubbock, Texas.
Texas Tech University has banned the sale of a T-shirt which bears the likeness of Michael Vicks or Michael Vick hanging a dog.
The dog is the mascot of Texas Tech's rival, Texas A ⁇ M.
The red and black shirts, on the front, it says Vickum.
And on the back, it's got a likeness of Vic in his football uniform, big number seven on the jersey, holding his helmet in his left hand, and a dog hanging.
This is pretty entrepreneurial, Vicom.
The red and black shirts, the text says Vicum on the front in an apparent reference to the Aggie's slogan, Gigam, was created by a tech student who was trying to sell them before Saturday's game in Lubbock.
The back of the shirt shows a football player wearing a number six seven Vic jersey, holding a rope with an image of the mascot of the Texas AM team at the end of a noose.
Vic anyway, tech officials announced that the fraternity that sold the shirts was suspended temporarily, will face judicial review for allegedly violating the solicitation section of the students' code of conduct.
School said it wouldn't allow the sale on campus of items that are derogatory, inflammatory, insensitive, or in such bad taste.
No more shirts are being produced, said the school in a release.
AM officials, in a statement, thanked Texas tech administrators for their response and action regarding this matter.
Now, the creator of the shirt, Jeffrey Kendia, declined to comment in an email to the AP on Tuesday, said he may make a statement after meeting with the Dean of Students.
Boy, you know, if there are any of these shirts out there, do you realize what they are worth?
Vicum.
Myron in Kingman, Arizona.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
You're next.
Hello, Rush.
Hey, Myron, how are you?
Just great.
Thank you for the opportunity.
You bet, sir.
We've been talking about the fact that this S-CHIP law has a lot to do with the coverage for indigent children in healthcare.
But one of the hidden provisions is I think perhaps even greater significance.
It also shows the manner in which the Democrats really don't value what it is that the market brings to health care.
And that provision that's hidden inside the S-CHIP bill will prohibit hospitals from being owned by physicians.
It will prohibit hospitals from being owned by doctors.
That's correct.
Now, that I didn't know.
And you know, Myron, it's very rare when a caller informs me of something I'm uninformed on.
And you've just done it.
I did not know that that provision was in.
I know that there's all kinds of stuff in addition to this, the expansion and so forth that's in there.
I mean, it's an outrageous piece of legislation, but I did not know that was there.
Oh, yes.
And, you know, in the nation, as of this date, there's a specialized hospital category called surgical hospitals.
And, you know, this history goes back a long time.
We don't have opportunity, I guess, really, to cover that.
But the upshot of it is that as of this date, there are only about 135 of these specialized hospitals.
And again, this provision, which is in the S-CHIP law or bill, will basically shut them down and make sure that no additional ones are going to be in the marketplace.
So I think it's of significance.
And why?
Tell people why it is of significance.
Well, again, if you look at the way the Democrats see the healthcare market, they would want to make sure, and this includes people like Pete Stark, Senator, as well as others, who view hospitals being owned by physicians as self-serving and in that they are able to refer to themselves in that particular scenario.
Because, of course, if you're a virtual practice.
Yes, yes, but let's cut to the chase.
What the Democrats don't want is anything in the private sector to be operating in health care.
They don't want the health.
Ultimately, down the road, they don't want anything in the private sector to be operating health care.
They want to operate it all from Washington and from the state capitals.
And ditto on that.
I mean, that's the bottom line, what they're looking for.
And the way that they're trying to sell it is, again, the class envy business by making the doctors the absolute evil and the problem in the healthcare business.
And it is outrageous.
You know, what's going to happen to doctors under Hillary Care and any other element of government-run medicine is something that needs to be looked at and imagined because you can have all the health insurance you want and you can have all the coverage.
But if you don't have a doctor to go to or if you don't have a doctor nearby to go, you don't have a qualified doctor to go to, do you realize how worthless your medical coverage is going to be?
And the way these people are taking out after doctors and, you know, already insurance companies determine a lot of medical decisions being made, that's going to be turned over to the government in due course.
And if you're sitting there saying, it's outrageous my insurance company should be making medical decisions.
Well, why don't you say that about Mrs. Clinton, too, then?
What qualifies her to be making medical decisions for every damn citizen in this country or anybody she appoints to run the program or anybody in Congress for crying out loud?
Why is it that the true professionals in this field are the ones being demonized and are being labeled as evil profiteers who don't care about your health?
They own hospitals.
They refer patients to themselves and each other, kickbacks.
That's just how they're trying to sell the concept to get private doctors, not only hospitals, because they want to own them and run them eventually.
Be right back.
Oh, yeah, I got to put this aside for Friday.
I've been meaning to get to this.
The problems of victory peace, how we're on the verge.
Let me just give you a heads up on this.
This is by J.R. Dunn, an American thinker today.
He says, we're closing in on victory in Iraq.
The jihadis are nearing collapse across the country.
With the exception of a few Baathist holdouts, the Sunni population is coming over in ever greater numbers.
Scarcely a day goes by now without another al-Qaeda kingpin being bagged by the coalition.
The jihadis have shown no ability to put together any kind of workable counter-strategery.
Even Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraq's version of the Rebel Without a Cause, appears to have smelled the coffee.
This past weekend, he at last shook hands with his mortal enemy, Abdulaziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, the largest Shiite political party.
This ends both Muki's boycott of the government and the gunfights between the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council and Muki's Mahdi army.
With the Shiites pacified and al-Qaeda on the run, all that remains are the freelancers and the bandits.
Victory holds its own set of challenges, though.
We often think of military victory as something that unfolds of itself, a series of events in the order of a natural phenomenon.
But victory in war is as much a product of human reason and passion as it is of luck and circumstance.
Victory requires management the same as any other aspect of the war.
Then he draws analogies.
We've got to be on the lookout even more so after victory in other parts of the world and not get lazy.
One of the most common methods of fumbling a victory is to allow the enemy one last great blow before the end.
And that's what occurred in the last months of World War II.
The Allied advance slowed to a halt for the winter of 1944.
The troops taking up bivouacs in central Belgium.
The commanders, above all, Omar Bradley, were not all worried.
The Germans are whipped.
They'd left their equipment and tens of thousands of their best troops behind in France.
Besides, the forest was far too dense to allow an army to maneuver through it.
But George Patton, far to the south, facing the Palatinate, recalled that the forest was the exact route taken by tanks during the 1940 conquest of France.
Looking at a map of the area, Patton mused, Brad could get in some real trouble up there in short order.
And he did.
Spearheaded by SS units, they broke through Allied lines.
The American units facing them had been at the front only a few days.
They collapsed and ran for it.
Many GIs froze in the woods.
Large numbers were taken prisoners.
Some were gunned down to the SS after being captured.
Only ferocious resistance by a few veteran units, above all, the 101st Airborne in the town of Bastogne, allowed the Allies to hold on long enough for Patton to get there, cut off the advancing German columns.
It required a month of fighting to restore the lines at the cost of over 60,000 casualties.
Now, the point of this analogy is to suggest here that at that point we thought we'd had to war one and the Germans were whipped and they mounted one last charge, which led to the Battle of the Bulge.
And he goes on to say here, Mr. Dunn does, that the jihadists cannot allow for the world to see their loss in Iraq as a loss.
They're going to have to do something somewhere major and big to show that they're still viable, still capable of conducting terrorist operations.
And he says that the United States, obviously they'll pick a soft spot.
And he says, of all the countries in the world right now, the U.S. might be one of the biggest soft spots, given our open borders, given the fact that so many likely cells of jihadists are already in the country.
So it's just a call for vigilance.
But what I found interesting about it was the assumption here that victory is just a matter of moments away here, that you don't hear any of this in the drive-by media.
We are not seeing the burning cars and the smoldering embers every night on the news.
And there's two reasons for that.
A, it's not happening.
But B, the Democrats have decided to drop Iraq as an issue.
And dutifully following behind, the drive-by media has gotten off of Iraq, too.
You'll notice that whatever is a front and burner issue for the Democrats is what the drive-by media focuses on every day in the news.
Happens to be S-CHIP right now, happens to be FISA, happens to be, they've dropped Iraq because the Democrats have dropped it.
So if you want to know what the Democrats' agenda is and what the latest smear they're trying to run is, the latest scam they're trying to perpetrate, watch the Drive-By Media every day.
Read the Drive-By Media.
Look at their two or three lead stories, and you'll find out what the Democrats are doing.
Bob Walla Walla, Washington, you're next in the program, sir.
Hello.
Oh, Rush, this is an honor.
20 years and I got through.
I just finished your newsletter, and we are so proud of you, Elaine and I.
We need you and hang in there when we want you 20 more years.
20 more years.
It might take that long to get every American to agree with me.
Oh, hey, we love you.
And you know, that 30% that you said that they hate you, they're envious of you, Rush, and they're jealous of you because they're afraid to be honest, and you're honest.
Yeah, you know, that's I appreciate you saying that.
That's a good point.
I'll tell you what I think it is.
I think people that don't know me or don't know President Bush still have this vile hatred.
It's irrational.
It's irrational in a certain sense.
But here's what scares them.
And I think it goes down, it's not really more complicated than this.
They detest people of faith, people who believe in God, because people who have faith and believe in God know that there are things in life much larger than themselves.
And the faith and the strength and the confidence that that faith provides people threatens liberals because to liberals, and I'm talking about the real radical liberals, the real radical liberals, the leaders of these movements, it's all about them.
They don't have faith in anything other than themselves.
They don't believe there's anything more than man and that they are the smartest among us and they want to be the focus.
And when they aren't, they're deathly afraid of people of faith because they don't have any.
And it's something I think needs to be pounded into people.
People are always asking, how can these people be the way they are?
They're scared.
You're exactly right.
Bob, they are frightened.
And they're frightened of people who have faith, who believe in things larger than themselves.
They want to be the ones people worship.
As always, folks, it's been more fun than I deserve to have.
And that's because of you.
The show is the thing, and you are the show.
Again, I'll be off tomorrow on the way to Philadelphia, but back with you on Friday for Open Line Friday from Nueva Ork.
▲
Export Selection