All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
October 30, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, ready to go, greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are, Rush Limboa, high atop our 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 have to say I didn't know this happened today.
Snurdley brought in a little bird.
He has pet birds.
And this is a parrot let.
Is that what it is?
The tiniest parrot that there is.
And he's uh he's named the bird Stumpy.
It's just it's a cutest little thing in there, and apparently uh 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 what would you they amput they amputated his right leg, it looks like.
So Stumpy's running around with uh 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 wanted to watch him.
And he's got him in this little cage, and I was in there looking at this little bird.
Um, and uh Snerdley started talking about how it's just amazing to watch these animals uh do everything they can to live.
Uh that that just they don't accept things.
It got me to thinking about a, you know, I've got my little cat punkin.
But punkin, we uh had another cat that uh was uh a blue Abyssinian, and that cat's name was Bonnie, and Bonnie was born not healthy.
She was she had all kinds of problems and eventually died at age five of a stroke.
But a hip wouldn't stay in joint and and uh she didn't have tear duct in her right eye, so it was always draining and so forth.
And I remember one day it took the cat to the vet to bring it at to have the the hip joint looked at, and then the vet said, Look, give give this give you gotta keep the cat quiet.
Can't go up and down the stairs, just keep the cat quiet.
So, gotta go those baby things, you know, that you block the stairs so little kids can't fall down.
And the cat said, uh the vet said, now give this give this cat this pill, a little valium, cat value.
Uh, because we got to keep her quiet.
So we did, and a cat fought it like crazy the most amazing thing to see.
The cat would jump off the bed, and 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 it just exhibited a 100% will to live, which is, of course, that's what life is.
Life exists to live in whatever form uh that it that it takes place, be it an animal, a human being, a plant, or what have you.
That's the that's the the the great thing or the mystery about uh about life is how its whole purpose is to sustain itself.
Now we humans uh we get to have fun in the process of doing that sometimes.
Uh, but uh the animals, of course, they just they're just following instinct or whatever, and it make well every time when I'm looking at Snerdley's little bird in there, uh uh you could foot it put it in the palm of your hand.
It is that tiny.
Uh but that that bird, it doesn't know anything other than it's it's it's it's it's trying to live.
And when you when you when you contrast what you every every living organism has this.
It has this innate will to live.
Uh and when you see that, either in an animal or human being or what have you, doesn't and then you contrast that to the uh the whole abortion movement, which it which it really is, to people who are suggesting that some people shouldn't live uh because of the circumstances they're going to be born to and so forth.
Uh you look at these little animals, the and and especially pets.
And I mean, they're just the essence of innocence, like little babies are.
And you uh you can learn a whole lot about nature and instinct if you just if you just watch.
I'm sure those of you who have little animals and have been hurt and and so forth know exactly uh what I'm what I'm talking about.
Same thing with little babies.
Um it's it's just a I don't know, just a little observation here.
I'm I I'm like Snerdley.
I marvel every time I see uh these kinds of things right in front of your eye.
When you see uh 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 uh 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?
Uh 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.
Uh, go outside at night and look whatever at the stars in the sky.
How can anybody how can anybody believe it's just coincidence or an accident is beyond me.
And I have the same reaction when I when I look at Snerdley's little bird uh in there.
When I in fact uh first saw Snerdley was uh when during the break, I walked in there and he had Stumpy in the uh palm of his hand, and and Stumpy was just clinging to his shirt.
Uh and so forth.
Just cutest little cutest little bird.
I my heart melts, folks.
It just it just does, especially the little birds hurt in there.
Uh and Snerdley says, uh, hope he lives.
You really don't have any doubt he's gonna live, do you?
You do have.
Yeah, well, that told Snerdley, I'd love to get some birds, but you know, 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 dochin named Doty.
And my parents, uh uh my grandparents had this parakeet named uh Pepper.
And somehow Pepper got out of the cage, and the docs and found the bird, and it was just over.
You know, 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 bat bird.
It was so sad.
It was just, but that's you know, animal rights.
Um instinct was just being followed.
One one quick thing here.
Uh, 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 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 uh sort of interceded at that at that comparison.
But his point was that it is war that provides legacy.
Uh peacemakers are not well known in history.
Of course, some of them are, though how well they made peace, but I mean these supposed people of peace, Mother Mother Teresa's well known, and Mahatma Gandhi is uh is well known.
But uh it got me to thinking he may have may have had a point.
You remember after 9-11, a bunch of Clinton supporters, uh 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.
Uh and that 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, and 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.
Um but the point is that Clinton may have been trying it for that reason.
Uh and both he and Hillary do have this point to prove that they uh, you know, Clinton is loathe the military letter, and Hillary with uh uh 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 uh for the historians that uh they were tough and were unafraid to use the military.
Just something interesting to think about.
I gotta 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 Wrangle and his massive tax increase.
All that coming up, plus your phone calls right after this.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Ill Rushbow and the EIB network.
Back to the phones, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Jeff, uh, thanks for the call, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Rush Cornhusker Ditto's from the Redis of the Red States.
Thank you, sir.
Uh it just so happens, Rush, that uh I heard the morning update this morning, and uh uh it's one of my cases that uh you had a uh outstanding commentary on it regards the Nebraska newborn screening program,
one of our uh nanny state uh provisions uh in the law, which requires that babies uh have a heel stick and uh five drops of blood are put onto some paper, and then the state screens for uh one of eight uh inherited metabolic genetic uh disorders.
Such as such as uh things like uh uh PKU, cystic fibrosis, um uh hemoglobinopathies like sickle cell diseases and so on.
Uh these are things which are inherited, they're incredibly rare, usually one in ten thousand, one in thirty thousand.
Uh but nonetheless, our state, uh, along with uh most other states have these mandated screening programs.
Unfortunately, Nebraska doesn't have an opt-out provision.
And uh so I uh unfortunately uh had some clients who, in declining doing the newborn screening after a home birth, were the uh victim of the nanny state run amok.
Yeah, let me let me briefly tell the story here because who we're talking to.
You're you're Jeff Downing, correct?
Correct.
You're the uh the parents' attorney.
So these parents the parents, I guess, is for religious reasons?
Yeah, exactly.
Uh 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 and 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 uh but his mother, Mary Anaya, and the state came in, and the comment of the deputies as they carted this uh baby away was, and she's begging the nurse, ma'am, don't worry, professionals will take care of him.
Uh now let me ask did they take the baby from their home?
They did.
They came right into the home, uh, walked in, took the baby out of the arms of his twelve-year-old brother, and uh and then we were on a roller coaster for six days until we got this child back.
Um the uh juvenile court uh judge just signed an order saying, well, if the state says these tests are mandated, then uh then I think they should be done.
Uh, 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 what I said about this in the uh in the update today that uh 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 what really ought to chill people, and it probably did uh chill some spines of people hearing you that did not hear the update today, uh uh what it chill you is what the episode represents.
Uh government officials walking into your house to seize a newborn.
Imagine what they if if they won't stop to do that, if they 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 my whole point about this, uh Jeff, was with people ceding all kinds of uh power to the government, uh, particularly over their health and their health care.
Uh this just equals less and less freedom that people and their families have, uh, including over your own health.
Uh 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 uh over people, particularly in the in the area of health care.
Now help me understand why why are people concerned about uh the and I'm this is not a critical question.
I'm just genuinely curious.
Uh why is Nebraska and other states so concerned about testing to find these four or five uh diseases, they're not contagious, are they?
Uh they are not contagious.
In fact, that's an interesting point.
All states usually have a vaccination statute also.
Uh the vaccination statutes, however, uh 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, uh, then uh perhaps it's not so intrusive.
Here, uh 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 uh still nursing nine or ten times a day.
Right.
It was the first time.
What superseded here was the law, the the letter of the law, even though there was no provision for what you do if the parents opt out over common sense.
Exactly.
In this case.
But why w what what's the reason?
Uh look at I'm I I don't mind admitting my ignorance on this.
What's the reason for the state to know whether somebody has a baby with cystric fibrosis?
Well, they simply want to be able to provide the parents, by the way.
Here's what the next letter uh or 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 a doctor's supposed to do.
Well, that's exactly right.
The the doctors of the nanny state uh are not the ones who control the decision making, it's the parents.
So that's what's so particularly.
Well, no, what I what uh what I meant was you've got the state.
Is the state mandating the doctors explain to you if uh if your child has one of these uh metabolic disorders, or is it the state that comes in and tells you, representative of something of the government that comes and tells you what your options are, how you how you should take care of the kid?
Yeah, matter of fact, they they order the doctor to provide the parents with information.
And so again, it's 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 uh the uh metabolic disorder can be reversed and the child may not suffer from mental retardation or uh very devastating things.
And 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 uh with all the force of the government coming down upon this family.
And so it was it was the biggest government overreach that I've ever seen uh as a lawyer 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 health care 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 uh objections to the way uh a state or uh 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 uh I know your brother uh 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 and that really is what happened in the Anaya case here.
Is everything okay with the child?
Well, of course, the the the silver lining is, and what we do 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 uh almost uh five and a half days.
She did get to nurse a little bit, but nowhere near uh the level of care it had before.
Yeah, but you heard you you heard the line, hey.
Uh they said to your uh clients, hey, we're all professionals here.
When I hear that line, it's time to run for the Talgar.
We're all professionals here.
Oh, that's exactly right.
And and uh this was a case where uh it It was uh great that an organization like the Alliance Defense Fund, uh, 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 circle.
Well, but you know, here's the thing, and I've I've only got twenty seconds here.
The thing the law's the law.
The problem with this law 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, uh, to go take the baby.
But the law does say the kid has to be tested.
You can argue the uh, 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 so, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Linbaugh making me complex understandable.
Dave and 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 uh longtime listener.
Thank you for uh sir.
It's it's nice to have you here.
Uh appreciate it.
Russ, I guess uh what I would like to know is your opinion.
Um increasingly I'm concerned about uh Congress is apparent uh uh too busy to be uh taking care of their own business or so busy trying to be president, commander in chief.
Um 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 uh resolved, and now going to a shortened work week.
Seems to me they're not doing the job we hired them to do.
Uh yeah, but there's a I addressed this a little bit earlier, and I'll expand on it.
I think what you have here essentially is a bunch of sixties protesters, anti-war types, who have assumed leadership positions in the in the House of Representatives, and they become the sit-in Congress.
Uh they have become the protest Congress.
Now, at work here is the usual politics.
In their estimation, you've got a you've got a lame duck president.
You 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 trump its success as it launches its own presidential campaign in the coming few months.
In addition to that, uh they won the elections in November of two thousand six, but they don't have uh nearly large enough majorities to get anything done.
Uh and they are they are beholden to a kook fringe base that is demanding fealty on certain radical issues.
Otherwise, this uh radical base will promote primary candidates to oppose Democrat incumbents.
Uh, and that's why Harry Reed's frightened, although he's not up till two thousand ten, but uh people in the House representatives are up every two years.
So it's it's uh uh i i i 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 uh to get what they want uh 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 uh Sacramento Bee.
Voters' views of Pelosi, comma, Congress have dimmed.
And get how this uh 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 thirty percent of Berlow for only the seventh time in the past fifteen years.
The poll of twelve thousand one registered voters found, both Pelosi uh and Congress as a whole have fallen short of voter expectations since uh 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.
Uh it's not just that.
This is 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, uh, folks, they have no idea how it is they're coming across to people.
Uh they they have lived for the longest time with this uh superiority attitude, born of the fact that they were in the majority for 40 years, and uh 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, uh, 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, uh, and they are they are simply ineffective.
And it's it's uh it's it's 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 sound uh sound bites.
Nancy Pelosi is still singing the same tune uh on Iraq and the S chip line.
This is from late yesterday on Capitol Hill.
The annual cost of insuring 10 million children America is 40 days spent in Iraq.
Forty 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, Miss Pelosi, and you know this.
And of course, what 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 uh threshold of victory, and she wants to snatch it.
She wants to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Or victory for the whatever.
She wants to snatch defeat from the 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.
Uh the SCHIP 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 twenty-five.
It's families with three to four times the poverty level and three to four hundred 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 the what's the old phrase, the camel getting its nose under the tent.
If uh somebody said today that if uh if they got the S chip program and they 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 uh to the 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 uh 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 cliche.
And it's the cliche that's been in their playbook for 40 years.
Republicans hate the poor, Republicans hate hate uh minorities, Republicans hate this, Republicans only love the rich.
Uh 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.
And in May of this year, amid 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.
And this is 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 uh not supporting this thing because they hate the kids.
Uh 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 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 uh card that they've played all the time, the rich, and they still do.
Tax cuts for the rich uh go after big oil, go after big pharmaceutical, go after uh big retail, big fast food, whoever.
They're always trying to tell a little guy out there that they, the Democrats, are gonna get even with these evil rich people who are stealing everything, and they're gonna make them pay.
They're gonna really inflict a lot of pain on them.
But I want to share with you some thoughts here, uh, my friends, on why class envy is not only a waste of time, but it's actually counterproductive.
What let me ask you a question.
What is the incentive that drives entrepreneurs and uh inventors to um find new and innovative and cheaper ways of providing goods and services and making profit product?
What is 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 is 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 it's not if there's not going to be some reward?
And this it's depressing, it it uh 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 lower cost than exist today.
Remember, the 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 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 thirty thousand dollars a year.
Because that 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, 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 is 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 Limboy, you can count on it.
Don't doubt me.
800 282-2882 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 collar, um, one collar previous to the last one, talk about the um state screening programs.
And I just wanted to say I didn't I don't agree with the government coming into the household and take the child away.
But those um 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 and many of those children depend on early intervention to have the most successful outcomes.
So I didn't really want your collar to think that there was uh no purpose to those screenings, even though No, no, he didn't say that.
I I asked him what the good intentions were behind the legislation.
And they're there because they're always, you know, I don't care, you know, some laws are just ridiculous.
But in something like this, you know they're good intentions, but a child's health is the is the good intention here.
Uh the old the overreaching is there's got to be a better way to do this than to allow that allow armed officers to come into the home and take a five-week baby away for six days.
Yeah, I I agree.
I I think that that that that was excessive, and perhaps they should have um come up with some rules put in place for people that do um refuse to have the heels stick and just give them the information or or at least have them have an opportunity to discuss whatever they want to do with their pediatrician.
You know, but there there are there is a good purpose for it.
Um, and I don't agree with the tactics that they did up in Michigan.
I think it was crazy and uh is Nebraska, but there's a lot of a lot of states have this law.
It's just that the difference is that in Nebraska uh there's no opt-out.
In some states, the parents have the option of opting out of the testing.
It's it's you 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 child 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 uh mandated, then what are they gonna do to you?
But this is this is this is a creeping incrosion uh on on people's freedom and liberty, and if if people don't realize this very quickly, we're gonna lose a lot of our ability to stop this.
Oh, 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.
▲
Export Selection