Rush Limbaugh Program - October 30, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:20

October 30, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, ready to go.
	Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
	Here we are, Rush Limbo, high atop EIB Southern Command Building, the EIB Southern Command in South Florida, where we are serving humanity and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
	I didn't know this happened today.
	Snerdley brought in a little bird.
	He has pet birds.
	And this is a parrotlet.
	What is it?
	The tiniest parrot that there is.
	And he's named the bird Stumpy.
	It's just, it's the cutest little thing in there.
	And apparently you get two other birds and they mated the two other birds.
	And Stumpy, Stumpy got caught in a nesting material.
	And the two other birds, to save Stumpy's life, actually, how would you call it?
	What would you say?
	They amputated his right leg, it looks like.
	So Stumpy's running around with one leg.
	Well, he's hopping around with one leg.
	And Snerdley brought him in today because it's just bleeding a little bit, and he wanted to watch him.
	And he's got him in this little cage.
	And I was in there looking at this little bird.
	And Snerdley started talking about how it's just amazing to watch these animals do everything they can to live.
	They don't accept things.
	It got me to thinking about a, you know, I've got my little cat Punkin.
	But Punkin, we had another cat that was a blue Abyssinian, and that cat's name was Bonnie.
	And Bonnie was born not healthy.
	He had all kinds of problems and eventually died at age five of a stroke.
	But her hip wouldn't stay in joint, and she didn't have tear duct in her right eye, so it was always draining and so forth.
	And I remember one day I took the cat to the vet to bring it to have the hip joint looked at.
	And the vet said, look, you got to keep the cat quiet.
	Cat can't go up and down the stairs.
	Just keep the cat quiet.
	So got out.
	We know those baby things, you know, that you block the stairs so little kids can't fall down them.
	And the cat said, the vet said, now give this cat this pill, a little valium, cat valium, because we got to keep her quiet.
	So we did, and a cat fought it.
	It was the most amazing thing to see.
	The cat would jump off the bed.
	Oh, no, you're supposed to stay on the bed.
	And it would just look at me and start weaving like it was drunk, trying to get to where I was just fighting the effects of this thing.
	And it was just exhibited a 100% will to live, which is, of course, that's what life is.
	Life exists to live in whatever form that it takes place, be it an animal, a human being, a plant, or what have you.
	That's the great thing or the mystery about life is how its whole purpose is to sustain itself.
	Now, we humans, we get to have fun in the process of doing that sometimes.
	But the animals, of course, they're just following instinct or whatever.
	Every time, when I'm looking at Snerdley's little bird in there, you could put it in the palm of your hand.
	It is that tiny.
	But that bird, it doesn't know anything other than it's trying to live.
	And when you contrast what you, every living organism has this.
	It has this innate will to live.
	And when you see that, either in an animal or human being or what have you, and then you contrast that to the whole abortion movement, which it really is.
	The people who are suggesting that some people shouldn't live because of the circumstances they're going to be born to and so forth.
	You look at these little animals, and especially pets.
	And I mean, they're just the essence of innocence, like little babies are.
	And you can learn a whole lot about nature and instinct if you just watch.
	I'm sure those of you who have little animals and have been hurt and so forth know exactly what I'm talking about.
	Same thing with little babies.
	So just a, I don't know, just a little observation here.
	I'm like Snerdley.
	I marvel every time I see these kinds of things right in front of your eye.
	When you see an animal give birth or a bird hatch from an egg and you watch the miracle of life actually happen right before your very eyes, how you cannot have a profound, almost sanctified respect for it is beyond me.
	It's sort of like I heard the other day some scientists, and for the sake of the story, we'll accept that what they discovered was true.
	They say the edge of the universe, which of course is strange because the universe is everything.
	How can it have an edge?
	But nevertheless, the farthest star in the universe from us, they found eight-something billion light years away.
	Now, that's a size that we humans cannot comprehend.
	And how anybody can hear that, go outside at night, look whatever at the stars in the sky, how can anybody believe it's just coincidence or an accident is beyond me.
	And I have the same reaction when I look at Snerdley's little bird in there.
	In fact, I first saw Snerdley during the break.
	I walked in there and he had Stumpy in the palm of his hand, and Stumpy was just clinging to his shirt and so forth.
	Just the cutest little sight, the cutest little bird.
	My heart melts, folks.
	It just does, especially the little birds hurt in there.
	And Snerdley says, I hope he lives.
	You really don't have any doubt he's going to live, do you?
	You do have.
	Yeah, well, that told Snerdley, I'd love to get some birds, but pumpkin would just go absolutely berserk.
	Can you say dinner time?
	In fact, my grandparents, when I was like six or seven years old, we had a little dachshund named Doty.
	And my parents, my grandparents, had this parakeet named Pepper.
	And somehow Pepper got out of the cage and the dachshund found the bird and it was just over.
	And we see this at six or seven.
	I remember my little cousin, who's two years younger, running around the house, Doty's eating bad bird.
	It was so sad.
	It was just, but that's, you know, animal rights.
	Instinct was just being followed.
	One quick thing here, folks.
	We had a call in the last hour from a guy worried of a 14-year cop working the streets.
	And he had an interesting point of view about Mrs. Clinton.
	He said, you know, I'm really concerned that she's going to be deploying the military everywhere once she becomes president.
	And to start comparing her to Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands War and so forth.
	And I sort of interceded at that comparison.
	But his point was that it is war that provides legacy.
	Peacemakers are not well known in history.
	Of course, some of them are, know how well they made peace, but I mean, these supposed people of peace, Mother Teresa is well known, Mahatma Gandhi is well known.
	But it got me to thinking, he may have had a point.
	You remember after 9-11, a bunch of Clinton supporters, and I think Clinton even himself on one occasion, were jealous that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch because it denied them an opportunity for greatness.
	And the Clintons did learn that lesson that war creates legacy.
	So you might say, well, okay, Rush, you know it all.
	Why didn't Bosnia give Clinton that legacy?
	Well, because there was no valor in the Bosnian War.
	Besides, it wasn't really us.
	It was NATO.
	It was fought from 15,000 feet.
	Plus, there was very little media coverage of the Bosnia War.
	Plus, there was no victory that could actually be proclaimed there.
	But the point is that Clinton may have been trying it for that reason.
	And both he and Hillary do have this point to prove that they, you know, Clinton loathed the military letter, and Hillary, with some of her comments that she's made during the presidential campaign about the military and about Iraq and about the war in general, may have a point to prove for the historians that they were tough and were unafraid to use the military.
	Just something interesting to think about.
	I got to take a quick time out.
	We'll come back.
	A little bit about the S-CHIP bill.
	The Democrats, Pelosi, and Kennedy are still wailing and moaning about it, but with the president's veto, we think that the Democrats got exactly what they want.
	And then Chuck Wrangell and his massive tax increase.
	All that coming up, plus your phone calls right after this.
	Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
	El Rushbo.
	And the EIB network.
	Back to the phones, Lincoln, Nebraska.
	Jeff, thanks for the call, sir.
	Nice to have you here.
	Rush, Cornhusker Dittos from the Reddest of the Red States.
	Thank you, sir.
	It just so happens, Rush, that I heard the morning update this morning, and it's one of my cases that you had an outstanding commentary on.
	Thank you, sir.
	Well, it regards the Nebraska newborn screening program, one of our nanny state provisions in the law, which requires that babies have a heel stick and five drops of blood are put onto some paper, and then the state screens for one of eight inherited metabolic genetic disorders.
	Such as.
	Such as things like PKU, cystic fibrosis, hemoglobinopathies like sickle cell diseases, and so on.
	These are things which are inherited.
	They're incredibly rare, usually one in 10,000, one in 30,000.
	But nonetheless, our state, along with most other states, have these mandated screening programs.
	Unfortunately, Nebraska doesn't have an opt-out provision.
	And so I unfortunately had some clients who, in declining doing the newborn screening after a home birth, were the victim of the nanny state run-amok.
	Yeah, let me briefly tell the story here because who we're talking to, you're Jeff Downing, correct?
	Correct.
	You're the parents' attorney.
	So the parents, I guess it's for religious reasons?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Decided that they didn't want the screening done on their child.
	And so the state came in and took the kid.
	Exactly.
	State came in, took the child and tested anyway and put it in foster care, an infant for a week.
	Five weeks and four days old, still nursing nine to ten times per day, had never taken a bottle, never been fed by anyone but his mother, Mary Anaya.
	And the state came in, and the comment of the deputies as they carted this baby away was, and she's begging the nurse, ma'am, don't worry, professionals will take care of him.
	Now, let me ask, did they take the baby from their home?
	They did.
	They came right into the home, walked in, took the baby out of the arms of his 12-year-old brother.
	And then we were on a roller coaster for six days until we got this child back.
	The juvenile court judge just signed an order saying, well, if the state says these tests are mandated, then I think they should be done, regardless of the fact that the statute doesn't even say what you do if the parents don't test.
	It just says a judge can enter an order, but it sure doesn't say sheriffs can come in and take children out of the home.
	Yeah, this is frightening.
	I remember what I said about this in the update today that you heard is this, put aside for a moment whether you agree or disagree with the parents and their decision to opt out of the blood test.
	What really ought to chill people, and it probably did chill some spines of people hearing you that did not hear the update today, what ought to chill you is what the episode represents.
	Government officials walking into your house to seize a newborn.
	Imagine what they, if they won't stop to do that, if they would not even hesitate to go take a five-week-old baby away from its nursing mother for six days for blood tests, imagine what they might someday do to you should you make a decision as an adult that you don't like.
	And so my whole point about this, Jeff, was with people ceding all kinds of power to the government, particularly over their health and their health care, this just equals less and less freedom that people and their families have, including over your own health.
	This is, and this is talked about this a lot lately.
	This is an example of the creeping control that the state is willing to assert over people, particularly in the area of health care.
	Now, help me understand, why are people concerned about the – this is not a critical question.
	I'm genuinely curious.
	Why is Nebraska and other states so concerned about testing to find these four or five diseases?
	They're not contagious, are they?
	They are not contagious.
	In fact, that's an interesting point.
	All states usually have a vaccination statute also.
	The vaccination statutes, however, provide religious exemptions or other medical opt-outs.
	And so if the government mandates something, but yet they give parents who are in the very best position to know what is best for their children, then perhaps it's not so intrusive.
	Here, the state interpreted this as saying, well, there is no opt-out, and so we're coming in and we're grabbing this baby regardless of the fact that he is still nursing nine or ten times a day.
	It was the first time.
	What superseded here was the law, the letter of the law, even though there was no provision for what you do if the parents opt out, over common sense in this case.
	But what's the reason?
	Look, I don't mind admitting my ignorance on this.
	What's the reason for the state to know whether somebody has a baby with cystic fibrosis?
	Well, they simply want to be able to provide the parents, by the way, here's what the next letter or section of the law says.
	If the child has one of these rare metabolic disorders, then they provide the parents with information about it.
	And then the parents can make a decision about treatment.
	That's literally what the law says.
	It doesn't say then.
	Well, wait a minute.
	What are doctors supposed to do?
	Well, that's exactly right.
	The doctors of the nanny state are not the ones who control the decision-making.
	It's the parents.
	So that's what's so particularly important.
	What I meant was you've got the state.
	Is the state mandating the doctors explain to you if your child has one of these metabolic disorders?
	Or is it the state that comes in and tells you, representative of the government that comes and tells you what your options are, how you should take care of the kid?
	Yeah, matter of fact, they order the doctor to provide the parents with information.
	And so again, it's more intrusion into a physician's practice as well.
	Okay, what are the good intentions behind this?
	There always are good intentions when legislators start passing laws like this.
	What are the good intentions behind this, Jeff?
	The good intentions are this.
	In these very rare instances, if the child is provided with medical treatment in the first days or weeks of life, then perhaps the metabolic disorder can be reversed and the child may not suffer from mental retardation or very devastating things.
	But yet, when the government says, even though this is incredibly rare, we're going to mandate this, they then follow it up with armed men coming into your home with all the force of the government coming down upon this family.
	And so it was the biggest government overreach that I've ever seen as a lawyer.
	It was the first time I didn't feel like I was participating in the American legal system, and it had everything to do with a mandate in the healthcare industry.
	Did you try to talk to your clients into changing their mind about the testing?
	I didn't, Rush, because our country is founded upon people having religious and conscientious objections to the way a state or a government is running things.
	That's why our founders came here and started this grand experiment in democracy.
	So it really goes to the very root of what our religious freedoms are.
	And I know your brother, David, wrote a fantastic book called Persecution, which in instance after instance, he highlighted how the government has come in and intruded into the private lives of people over matters of conscience or faith.
	And that really is what happened in the Anaya case here.
	Is everything okay with the child?
	Well, of course, the silver lining is, and what we knew to be the case, was this baby didn't have any of these problems.
	In fact, he was healthy as a horse.
	He was growing.
	He was strong.
	And the only time that there was any disruption to his life and he was perhaps endangered at all was when he was taken from the sustenance of his mother for almost five and a half days.
	She did get to nurse a little bit, but nowhere near the level of care it had before.
	Yeah, but you heard the line, hey, they said to your clients, hey, we're all professionals here.
	When I hear that line, it's time to run for the talker.
	We're all professionals here.
	No, that's exactly right.
	And this was a case where it was great that an organization like the Alliance Defense Fund, who I have been trained by, there are hundreds, if not a thousand, lawyers now spread across the country that when we see government intrusions and overreaching like this, we're trained and we can jump in and represent people in certain ways.
	Well, but you know, here's the thing, and I've only got 20 seconds here.
	The law is the law.
	The problem with this law is that there was no provision for an opt-out.
	What's the penalty?
	What do you do?
	So they just assumed that they had the right, even though the law didn't give them the right, to go take the baby.
	But the law does say the kid has to be tested.
	You can argue the, and I know you did argue the religious exemptions and so forth, but this is an example where law being really rigid sometimes is not good law.
	Gladly and happily sold, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh making the complex understandable.
	Dave in Billings, Montana.
	I'm glad you called, sir, and welcome to the EIB Network.
	Yes, hello, Rush.
	Honored to speak with you.
	First time caller, first time, longtime listener.
	Thank you, sir.
	It's nice to have you here.
	Appreciate it.
	Russ, I guess what I would like to know is your opinion.
	Increasingly, I'm concerned about Congress as a parent too busy to be taking care of their own business or so busy trying to be president, commander-in-chief, how to take over Bush's job that they're not getting their own job done.
	And as recently as not getting any of their budgets resolved, and now going to a shortened work week, seems to me they're not doing the job we hired them to do.
	Yeah, but I addressed this a little bit earlier, and I'll expand on it.
	I think what you have here essentially is a bunch of 60s protesters, anti-war types, who have assumed leadership positions in the House of Representatives, and they've become the sit-in Congress.
	They have become the protest Congress.
	Now, at work here is the usual politics.
	In their estimation, you've got a lame duck president.
	You've got a presidential campaign that is underway and starts in earnest in a mere few months.
	The last thing that they want to give this president and his party is any legislative achievement.
	They are willing to stand in the way of his achievement, his accomplishment on anything from a rock to anything domestic in order to prevent the Republican Party from being able to trumpet success as it launches its own presidential campaign in the coming few months.
	In addition to that, they won the elections in November of 2006, but they don't have nearly large enough majorities to get anything done.
	And they are beholden to a kook fringe base that is demanding fealty on certain radical issues.
	Otherwise, this radical base will promote primary candidates to oppose Democrat incumbents.
	And that's why Harry Reid's frightened, although he's not up till 2010.
	But people in the House of Representatives are up every two years.
	So it's, I don't think they're trying to be Bush.
	I think they're trying to get a lot of things done and don't have the support and don't have the votes, don't have the support of the American people to do what they want, while they think they do have the support of the American people to get what they want done.
	And in the process, while they think they're making the Republicans look bad and they think they're making Bush look bad, it is they who look absurd.
	Here's a story today from the Sacramento Bee.
	Voters' views of Pelosi, Congress have dimmed.
	And get how this story begins.
	House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's own party is turning on her, apparently because of a perception among California Democrats that she hasn't done enough to shake up the status quo in Washington.
	This according to a field poll released last Friday.
	Congress overall doing even worse with California voters and approval ratings sagging to 30% or below for only the seventh time in the past 15 years.
	The poll of 12,001 registered voters found both Pelosi and Congress as a whole have fallen short of voter expectations since taking over both houses.
	I think the reason for her decline, the low ratings Congress is getting, is that voters here are not seeing any change.
	It's not just that.
	This is where these people don't get it.
	The voters are, indeed, not seeing change, but they are also seeing a bunch of spoiled brat little kids masquerading as Democrats.
	They are seeing and hearing nothing but lies, rage, and hatred directed toward a man that is not unlikable.
	President Bush may not be popular policy-wise, but nobody in the mainstream of this country hates his guts.
	They do, and their supporters do.
	I tell you, folks, they have no idea how it is they're coming across to people.
	They have lived for the longest time with this superiority attitude born of the fact that they were in the majority for 40 years.
	And during that time, they had a monopoly on power.
	They had a monopoly on media power.
	They had a monopoly on a number of things.
	That monopoly is gone.
	They were so excited when they won the House back.
	And they were so excited when they got control of the Senate back.
	And now they find they can't do anything with it.
	They have two of the most ineffective leaders the Democrat Party has ever had run the House and Senate in my lifetime.
	And it's starting to show up here.
	And all these visions of greatness and achievement and embarrassing Bush, impeaching Bush, investigating Bush, and causing all kinds of tumult and chaos have not borne out.
	They are miserable failures.
	They are, and it's apparent.
	Their failures are quite visible.
	They are profound.
	And they are simply ineffective.
	And it's noticeable to one and all, and they are aware of it too.
	It's not that they're trying to act like the executive branch.
	Let's look at this S-CHIP business, for example.
	Let's go to the audio soundbites.
	Nancy Pelosi is still singing the same tune on Iraq and the S-CHIP line.
	This is from late yesterday on Capitol Hill.
	The annual cost of insuring 10 million children in America is 40 days spent in Iraq.
	40 days in Iraq, 10 million children insured in America in one year.
	So we certainly can afford to do this.
	It's not about affording it, Ms. Pelosi, and you know this.
	And of course, well, 10 days or 40 days in Iraq, how about all the redundant social programs that got way too much money being spent on them with way too much waste and fraud?
	Why don't you go get the money from there?
	We're talking about U.S. national security you want to endanger.
	We're on the threshold of victory, and she wants to snatch it.
	She wants to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat or victory, whatever.
	She wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
	And this old line, she used this line two or three weeks ago.
	This is not inspiring her side.
	It's not inspiring the American people.
	This kind of shock ultra-left-wing liberalism.
	The S-CHIP program, by the way, if you look at all the polls on it, the message got out: the drive-by media monopoly is over.
	Once the American people found out that the S-CHIP program she's talking about is not just poor children, it's children up to the age 25.
	It's families with three to four times the poverty level, or three to 400 times the poverty level of income.
	That's not what the American people want a health program for poor kids to be about.
	This is nothing more than what's the old phrase, the camel getting its nose under the tent.
	If somebody said today that if they got the S-CHIP program and got Medicare and Medicaid on the other end, then they've got the middle class surrounded.
	And all that's left to get national socialized medicine is to find your way in to the middle class.
	Well, this was a stealth way of doing it.
	Now, the real question is this: do the Democrats really want this program to pass?
	Do they really want the override to pass?
	See, I don't think, and the dirty little secret is, folks, the Democrats don't care about the children.
	The children are merely the vehicle in which they drive in order to get this thing down the road to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
	What they want to accomplish is to embarrass the president and to be able to cast Republicans is against the children, particularly against the poor children, because that's their cliché.
	And it's the cliché that's been in their playbook for 40 years.
	Republicans hate the poor.
	Republicans hate minorities.
	Republicans hate this.
	Republicans only love the rich.
	Those things don't fly anymore.
	The class envy business is something that hasn't really been that successful for them for quite a while.
	Yet it's the only thing they know how to play, the only card they know how to play.
	Once the American people found out about it, the thing was up.
	But what they really want, they don't want this to pass.
	They're not trying to get this done for the kids.
	They're trying to get this done for themselves.
	They want this as an election issue for all of next year.
	Here's Ted Kennedy wailing and moaning on the Senate floor just this morning.
	The White House has called upon the supporters of CHIP to compromise and compromise and compromise, and we have.
	But this much is clear.
	We will not compromise the future of a generation of American children just because they come from the working poor.
	In May of this year, amidst statements from the president that CHIP should put kids first, his administration said yes to 39,000 adults in Wisconsin.
	But now they want to say no.
	The White House is now shocked, shocked to discover that adults are covered under CHIP.
	White House is shocked, shocked to discover that it, well, but it's a poor children's program.
	So they're still wailing and moaning about it.
	They know that the president's not going to go along with a compromise because the compromise is not really a compromise.
	What I laughed about with this when the Democrats came up with the idea, well, we'll come up with a compromise to give Republicans in the House a chance to save face.
	Because it's Republicans who embarrass themselves by not supporting this thing because they hate the kids.
	President, the Republicans are not falling for it, and so the Democrats are already...
	Ted Kennedy's speech here is just a preview of what you're going to hear in modified form in campaign ads all of next year.
	This is exactly what the Democrats want out of it.
	They don't care about kids.
	I want to say something about class envy here, too.
	You know, the Democrats have had this class envy card that they've played all the time, the rich, and they still do.
	Tax cuts for the rich, go after big oil, go after big pharmaceutical, go after big retail, big fast food, whoever.
	They're always trying to tell a little guy out there that they, the Democrats, are going to get even with these evil rich people who are stealing everything, and they're going to make them pay.
	They're going to really inflict a lot of pain on them.
	But I want to share with you some thoughts here, my friends, on why class envy is not only a waste of time, but it's actually counterproductive.
	Let me ask you a question.
	What is the incentive that drives entrepreneurs and inventors to find new and innovative and cheaper ways of providing goods and services and making product?
	What is the driving force?
	Profit, exactly right.
	The hope of making a profit.
	And that does not mean somebody's heartless.
	It doesn't mean somebody's cold and cruel.
	It means somebody wants to go into business for something reason that they love, provide a service, a product or whatever, and they want it to be worth their while financially.
	The idea that people want to improve their financial circumstances is somehow a sin is absurd, but that's what the Democrats want you to believe.
	If everybody in a society, and this has been tried and it's failed miserably, if everyone received the same amount of money, income, no matter how productive or inventive they were, there would be no incentive to do the things necessary to grow the economy or to stand out among anybody else.
	If you are going to make whatever everybody else makes, why should you work harder if there's not going to be some reward?
	And this, it's depressing.
	It does not advance prosperity in any way, shape, manner, or form.
	Therefore, I would submit to you that it is good for society when there are large differences in income between the upper and middle classes.
	It is healthy that these differences, these gaps exist, because it means that there is still incentive out there for others to continue to try to find the ways of providing more and even better goods or services at even a lower cost than exist today.
	Remember, the rich person only became rich through the willing participation of millions of people who on a daily basis gave up their money in return for something of greater value to them than their money, except the Kennedys who inherited it all.
	But when you part ways with your money for a product, goods, or services, you're finding something that is at least as valuable to you as your money, or perhaps even more so.
	And for this reason, the great wealth of a few people is just a tiny reflection of the much greater benefits that the whole economy has experienced.
	So the middle class, as well as the poor, need to be thankful that there is this gap because it's something to shoot for.
	It's an incentive.
	It's something to shoot for to be part of.
	And this, by the way, does not just apply to millionaires and billionaires.
	It applies to anybody.
	Somebody makes only $30,000 a year.
	Because if you make 30, I guarantee you're rich in the eyes of somebody else.
	If you make 75, you're rich in the eyes of somebody else.
	If you make 125,000, you're rich in the eyes of somebody else.
	Because there's always somebody that's going to have more than you've got.
	There's always somebody going to have less than you've got.
	The people who have more than you have inspire you to get where they are.
	And the people below you are trying to get where you are, even though you think there are people who have more than you do.
	It goes throughout the chain this way, and it provides the incentive for entrepreneurs and inventors to come up with better services products at lower cost.
	And all of this is rooted in competition.
	And if that isn't taught, or if competition is taught as something evil and bad, then the people who are taught that are being done a great disservice.
	Back in a second.
	Taking care of business, Rush Limbaugh.
	You can count on it.
	Don't doubt me.
	800-282-288-2 to Naples, Florida.
	And Stephanie, hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
	How are you?
	I'm fine, Stephanie.
	Thanks very much.
	Good.
	I wanted to just call.
	I listened to the caller, one caller previous to the last one, talk about the state screening programs.
	And I just wanted to say I didn't, I don't agree with the government coming into the household to take the child away.
	But those screening programs actually do provide a service in terms of identifying children that are at risk for those disorders.
	And some of them are not rare, like sickle cell disease is not a rare disorder.
	And many of those children depend on early intervention to have the most successful outcome.
	So I didn't really want your callers to think that there was no purpose to those screenings, even though...
	No, no, he didn't say that.
	I asked him what the good intentions were behind the legislation.
	Because they're always, I don't care, some laws are just ridiculous.
	But in something like this, you know they're good intentions.
	A child's health is the good intention here.
	The overreaching is there's got to be a better way to do this than to allow armed officers to come into the home and take a five-week baby away for six days.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think that that was excessive, and perhaps they should have come up with some rules put in place for people that do refuse to have the heel snake and just give them the information or at least have them have an opportunity to discuss whatever they want to do with their pediatrician.
	But there is a good purpose for it.
	And I don't agree with the tactics that they did up in Michigan.
	I think it was crazy.
	That was Nebraska, but a lot of states have this law.
	It's just that the difference is that in Nebraska, there's no opt-out.
	In some states, the parents have the option of opting out of the testing.
	You say it's excessive, and I agree with you, for armed officials of the law to come into your house and take your baby for six days.
	It's more than excessive.
	That's more than excessive.
	It is excessive to even have the concept of writing such laws.
	The nanny state government assuming that parents have no clue, have no interest in their children's health, have no concern.
	What ought to frighten everybody about this is the mindset behind legislators who think that they have the authority and the right to grant themselves this kind of power because these kinds of grants of power are never the end of anything.
	They just start new trends.
	Once they can come into your house, take your baby, if you opt out of a test that's mandated, then what are they going to do to you?
	This is a creeping encrosion on people's freedom and liberty.
	And if people don't realize this, very quickly, we're going to lose a lot of our ability to stop this.
	Where's the time going here?
	Well, we got another hour.
	And as usual, cram more into that hour than most programs cram into an entire year.
	Looking forward to it resuming.
	Sit tight.

▲