All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
September 24, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman Mark Stein sitting in.
Rush will be back tomorrow for Open Line Friday.
You know people occasionally say to me, well look I know you're an undocumented immigrant, but what do you do when you're not guest hosting for Rush?
A little light seasonal agricultural labor, the housekeeping staff at the Elliott Spitzer Motel.
Actually no, until this week I was the oldest child prostitute at the federally funded Acorn Bordello in Baltimore.
It was steady work.
I've been doing it since I was 12.
But what with all the fuss they're now they're now cracking down on Acorn and this is the kind of strong action that Congress is taking.
John Conyers is I believe sponsoring a bill saying child prostitutes will no longer be tax-deductible dependents or eligible for federal subsidy above the age of 37.
So thanks a bunch guys.
I'm out in the street now.
This isn't the America I know.
It was a great deal.
I loved it.
I had many happy, many happy years in the Acorn Bordello, but it's all gone now.
America's oldest child sex slave is now looking for work.
How pathetic is that?
Rush will be back tomorrow and he'll be on tonight on the Jay Leno show at 10 p.m. Eastern, 9 Central on NBC.
Here's a glimpse of the world the day after tomorrow.
This is from the Washington Post.
This is what the environmentalists are planning for us, folks.
Environmentalists seek to wipe out plush toilet paper.
Soft toilet paper.
You know this, the things now, the two-ply toilet paper or this three-ply, I don't know whether you've seen this.
Yeah, three-ply double rolls, quilted northern ultra-plush.
Quilt, I believe that's the brand, quilted northern ultra-plush.
This is killing the planet.
And you know where it's going to lead.
Eventually they'll come up with the four-ply.
I guess they're constrained eventually by the physical curvature.
But the way it's going to go, you've got your two-ply, now it's gone to three-ply.
Next, these pampered, decadent Americans are going to go to four-ply.
Every time you get out the three-ply toilet paper, you are killing the planet.
This fluffy toilet paper that the ephete decadent American posterior requires is made up of old-growth forests from Canada.
It comes from northern forests.
I often find actually in my part of northern New Hampshire, you're stuck behind the truck ferrying paper products from Canada's old growth forests down to America's bathrooms, probably to the illegal B-Day in Colonel Gaddafi's tent, the municipal zoning thing.
It's probably that he's in breach of, isn't it?
They said, oh, we don't mind the tent in the garden.
We don't mind the ensuite bathroom in the tent, but unfortunately, you don't have a permit for the Tuply toilet paper because this is one of these, he's in one of these yuppie towns just north of New York City.
But it all comes from, all this Tuply toilet paper comes from Canada.
You know, you Americans, you mock the Canadians as this sissy boy nation.
You don't want to provoke a war with Canada.
You especially don't want to provoke a long war with Canada because you're going to be very uncomfortable once the toilet paper sanctions kick in.
Basically, the Canadians are the house of sourdough toilet paper.
And what they can do to you on this is not pleasant.
So anyway, the environmentalists, the environmentalists are now saying, well, look, all this American toilet paper is killing the planet.
By the way, this is, when we had our excitable caller in the previous hour who was going on about America's mistakes, the wickedness of America, let me just say something on that.
Because this is a complete delusion that America is somehow scary.
America is the most benign superpower in history because it's a non-imperial superpower.
If you were in Poland in the 1930s between the Third Reich on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other, they were scary superpowers because they coveted your land.
And it's precisely because America is a non-imperial superpower and doesn't want to go gobbling up real estate all over the planet that the anti-Americans around the world have had to construct this alternative thesis: that it no, no, no, it's not American planes and troops and bombs and warships that are a threat to the planet.
It's American consumerism.
The American is doing far more damage to the planet than the Luftwaffe ever did or that the Chinese army ever did just by going to McDonald's in his SUV and ordering a cheeseburger in the drive-through lane.
The Americans are inflicting more damage on the planet than Napoleon or Stalin could ever have done in their wildest dreams.
And now they've decided because the cheeseburger SUV thing, even that isn't quite scary enough, they're now saying American toilet paper is killing the planet.
So environmental groups, according to this story in the Washington Post, are now saying that they want to use recycled toilet paper.
They're particularly hostile to the Tuply toilet paper, which Alan Hershkowitz, the senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the hummer of the paper industry.
So that is, if you're using Tuply toilet paper, it is like driving around.
It's the hummer of the paper industry.
You're killing these old-growth forests in Canada with this two-ply toilet paper.
So they're now saying we need to go back to one-ply toilet paper and to recycled toilet paper.
And that is what is necessary to save the planet.
Now, remember, the environmentalists come up with this every so often.
They start to wage their toilet paper platform.
In fact, in that Obama Pledge video that all these, that Ashton Kutcher, the celebrated thespian, put together to mark Obama's inauguration.
There are all these celebrities, like two or three of whom you may even have heard of, who are in this video pledging to do all these things to save the planet, including things like not flushing the toilet and all the rest of it.
And Cheryl Crowe, a couple of years ago, Cheryl Crowe said that we ought to mandate only using one sheet of toilet paper every time Americans went to the bathroom.
I don't know what happened to that campaign, whether Sheryl Crowe kept up with it.
Catherine, are you a big Sheryl Crowe fan?
You've been following her toilet paper campaign?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, no, no, no.
She was entirely serious.
She was entirely serious about all the big rock stars that were going to go and make the big celebrity fundraising single for the one sheet of toilet paper campaign.
All we are saying is give one piece a chance.
And that was going to save the world by cutting down on the American, the American bottom is the biggest threat to the planet now.
It's far worse than the don't worry about the Iranian nuclear program.
You're wasting your time worrying about that.
The environmental devastation wreaked by American posteriors.
And this is presumably what Obama was touching on when he abased himself before the United Nations is the havoc wreaked by the Tuply toilet paper.
What is interesting to me about this is that, in fact, Basic hygiene, we talk about healthcare all the time.
90% of healthcare is actually basic hygiene.
For example, the minute you want most of your healthcare problems to go away, they're spread by disease.
And disease is spread by simple things like not washing hands, not having indoor plumbing, and all the rest of it.
So although it seems very bucolic and attractive to the environmentalist mind that we should dispense with all these comforts like triple ply toilet paper, Drew Barrymore did some reality show, I believe, where she went and lived in the woods.
And, you know, what's the old saying?
Does Drew Barrymore poop in the woods or whatever?
Whatever the expression is.
Anyway, she did for a reality TV show.
But the reality in that in the big picture is that it was the introduction of plumbing and sewage systems and modern bathrooms that actually helped eliminate much of the disease on the planet.
As I said, 90% of healthcare is simple hygiene.
So there is a cost to pay for going down the Sheryl Crowe, Give One Piece a Chance road.
Nevertheless, they're now targeting your two-ply toilet paper.
So if you're there squeezing the shaman, if you've got the cotton L out, treasure it while you can, because you're soon going to be having to smuggle that into the country if these environmentalist groups get their way.
I think, I do believe that environmentalism is in large part an assault on the American way of life.
Now, the American way of life is obviously a consumerist thing.
This is the great thing about this country.
If you're a peasant in Poland in the year 1500, you are likely to be a peasant in the year 1900 and to be a peasant in the year 2300.
So instead, people come here and they move out of the hovel and they get at the bigger house in the suburbs and they get the bigger car and they start using the double quilted toilet paper.
And the left say, no, no, no, that is all wrong.
We need to regulate you back essentially to surf level to say we're going to set a limit on the size of house you can have and the size of car you can have and how many plies you can have in your toilet paper on the grounds of saving the environment.
And that is why it is striking to me that the biggest proponents of these theses are always hereditary princes.
Sometimes they're real hereditary princes like the Prince of Wales over in London who was arguing that we only have eight years to institute all these programs or the planet will be kaput.
That was the Prince of Wales, his big thing.
He comes and says we've got eight years left to save the planet.
He's trumped Al Gore with the 10-year thing.
We've only got eight years to save the planet or it's going to fry and we're all going to die.
And so we need to reduce, the Prince of Wales tells his subjects, we need to reduce consumerism, we need to reduce the way we live, we need to reduce our standard of living.
And then he gets into his limo and he's driven to his other palace.
Meanwhile, over here, Al Gore does the same thing.
Al Gore lives in this place that's lit up like a Christmas tree in Tennessee, but he thinks you should be beating your clothes with the native women on the rocks down by the river.
And how far are they prepared to go to that?
Lindsay Allen, a senior forest campaigner with Greenpeace, now says they've come up with a policy that will shift the entire way that tissue companies work.
And as HR rather maliciously said to me before the show, do you think this is why environmentalists are so cranky?
They're using the scratchy, waxy, Recycle toilet paper.
Yes, the chapped and chafed.
But they know what's best for us.
This is what's coming, folks.
One ply toilet paper.
We'll be a first world nation forced to use third world toilet paper.
Mark Stein, in for rush on the EIB network.
Lots more.
Straight ahead.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for rush on the EIB Network.
Let's go to Chad in Naples, Florida, the state of Chad's.
Chad, you're on the Rush Limbusho.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Mark, how are you doing today?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
Great, great.
You know, I couldn't help but call in because I've had opportunity to travel some international.
And I've been to Venezuela, Honduras, India, and America.
And I think the biggest thing that I found, especially like when going to India, is they don't even have toilet paper in that third world country.
It's a bucket and a cup.
Right.
And use them in the right order, too.
Yeah, and use them in the right order, and then make sure you don't touch each other's left hand.
It's pretty scary.
They give the tourists a little quarter roll, and it's pretty rough stuff.
But the best one that I think I've experienced is when I was in Venezuela and by the public toilets there, by some of their subways, they actually have a little stand set up and they'll sell toilet paper by the square.
They got chiclets and toilet paper.
And it depends on how many squares you want as to how much you've got to pay.
And that toilet paper is pretty rough.
It's actually got splinters and chunks of wood in it, so you really care.
So direct from the old growth forest with no intervening.
Listen, Chad, you say, did I hear you right?
They sell you the toilet paper with the wood chunks and the chiclets.
It's the same guy standing outside the public bathroom selling you them, is it?
Yeah, yeah, it is.
That's correct.
And now, is it normal?
Right, right.
And you buy your toilet paper and chiclets from the same guy then.
You don't kind of.
Right, right.
What do you, do you, you don't kind of, do you have the chiclets first, or is that before?
How's that work?
I don't know.
I didn't have the chiclets.
I did buy the toilet paper because I was kind of desperate at that point.
Right.
Right.
Well, that's.
But you fell.
I tell you, I'm not looking forward to that that happens here because I really enjoy my northern quilted with the grooves in it.
You know, it's kind of the best stuff out there.
Northern quilted with the grooves in it.
We're getting really used to it.
Make the most of it.
You want to start?
Have you got a big basement?
You want to?
You want to go there, clean out price chopper, get it all down there because the plans that the environmentalists have got for you, that stuff is, you'll be able to sell that on the black market.
I'm going to hit Costco a little later this afternoon and stock up.
Okay, that sounds like good advice.
Thank you, Chad.
That's Chad already anticipating the great clampdown on two-ply and three-ply toilet paper.
I don't know what they're using.
In Oogadooga, I've never used a public bathroom in Oogadooga.
And often you don't get the – you know the interesting thing?
When you go, if you stay in an American chain hotel around the world, they will have the American-style toilet paper.
So they'll fly it in to cater for the elite.
But there's basically gradations.
There's a class system in toilet paper if you're in, say, Amman, where at the Grand Hyatt, you'll get your two-ply and your three-ply, and then it's a whole other story when you're out in the rest of the world.
There's a whole fascinating culture about.
No, they don't.
I mean, it's generally not a good sign if you're looking for a hotel.
And normally when you're looking for it, as you're driving along the road and you see, it says, yeah, color TV, free Wi-Fi, swimming pool.
That's good.
People say, oh, that's right.
But if you're just driving along, it says motel, rooms available, two-ply, that's probably not a good sign that you're at a premium hotel.
I don't know.
I'm not a seasoned world traveler like Chad, but all I'm saying is that when, and of course, when you're at the first thing that always happens to you when you're picked up at the airport by the guy and you say, take me to the Grand Hyatt downtown, and the taxi driver always goes, Oh, the Grand Hyatt, very, very expensive, very expensive place to stay, very expensive, sir.
My cousin has a hotel that is a lot far more reasonable.
And I go, well, how expensive is the Grand Hyatt?
And they go, oh, it'll cost $60 American dollars.
$60 American dollars.
And you go, yeah, yeah, but it's got like the two-ply and the three-ply.
And then the guy with the cousins hotel will cost $55 a night, but it doesn't have the two ply.
So these are things to take into account when you're a world traveler.
And it'll be, and in the new, brave new world that the Democrats are planning for us, it'll be like that here soon enough.
By the way, this is going to devastate the Canadian economy.
I mean, I haven't seen the official figures, but something like 98% of the Canadian economy now is dependent on two-ply toilet paper usage in the United States.
So you're going to have a whole big war of...
If you thought the War of 1812 was tough, this is going to be way worse.
When you basically not prepared to inflict sanctions on the Iranians for the nuclear regime, but you're prepared to punish the Canadians for their two-ply toilet paper, then don't be surprised if the whole planet goes to hell.
You're not thinking through the big picture of this.
But it's always the safest way to assume.
When you're asked to pick the pros and cons of any issue, the bad guy is always American consumerism.
And going back to that call we took in the first hour.
This is the point.
It's precisely because the United States is not an aggressor nation that goes around conquering peoples, that they have had to actually come up with this thesis that simply the way Americans live.
Nobody did that with the Third Reich, did they?
Nobody said, well, look, look, these Germans wandering around in Lederhausen, the Lederhausen is devastating the planet.
Nobody had to do that then because they were conventional great powers.
And this obsession with American consumerism is, in fact, a reflection on how benign the United States is as a global superpower.
So I stand for three-ply toilet paper.
I think that's what makes America America.
Motherhood, apple pie, and three-ply toilet paper.
Where is the politician who will stand up and say that that is the American way of life?
Mark Stein sitting in for Rush on the EIB network.
Don't forget, Rush will be on the Jay Leno show tonight and back here for Open Line Friday, full three hours with Rush tomorrow.
And you can hear his interview with Chris Myers and Steve Hartman of Fox Sports if you go and check it out at rushlimbaugh.com.
Yeah, great to be with you.
Rush will be back tomorrow for Open Line Friday.
The inmates of the Vern Prison in Portland, Dorset, have begun drinking their swine flu hand gel because it gets it contains alcohol.
So this is great news.
I wonder whether, because it was interesting to me that Colonel Gaddafi touched on swine flu.
He implied basically it had been cooked up by the U.S. military and then escaped from the planet.
But I began to wonder, in the light of this story, whether he'd made the mistake of drinking his swine flu hand gel before he gave the speech.
Let's go to Tom in Manhattan.
Tom, thanks for waiting.
Tom in Dictator choked Manhattan.
We tried to go to him earlier, but we got a lot of heavy breathing.
You're there live by the telephone right now.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Okay.
Basically, in order to understand the agenda of the radical left, you have to understand the agenda of the radical media, mass media in this country.
There's an article.
It's a documentary.
It's called Who Rules America.
You can find it at netvan.com.
That's N-A-T-V-A-N.com.
Yeah, oh, okay, okay.
What's your point on what the radical left strategy is then?
My point is this.
You know, basically, a politician who's elected to office lives and breathes on the basis of the mass media supporting him.
Because let me just explain.
Most people are very incapable of making informed decisions either through willful ignorance or just simply lack of ability.
But most of their information comes from the television, the radio, the print media, the internet increasingly, which is a good thing.
But most of the traditional mass media is where most of the population get their information.
And with that mass media in the control of people who are anti-American, with an anti-American agenda, those voters go into the polls and pick the politicians that the media approves and says that, you know, basically these are the politicians that you should actually choose and these are the politicians who do best for the country.
Well, I think that's true in a macro sense, and it was true up to a point in the days when, it was true even more so in the days when just three networks and a couple of newspapers set the agenda.
I had a little experience with this myself, actually, after I was here a couple of weeks ago.
I saw how the old school media, the dinosaur media, the drive-by media, can actually get its story out there and send it around the world before anybody knows what's going on.
But that is not the case anymore.
I think the mass media looks ridiculous in the light of the Acorn scandal and the Van Jones scandal and the art at the NEA, the government propaganda art at the NEA.
Basically, these are three stories that are important stories about the administration, and the New York Times didn't cover them until they were over and then offered these ridiculous excuses.
The New York Times said it didn't cover the Van Jones story because in the run-up to the Labor Day weekend, not the Labor Day weekend itself, but in the month before it, they'd been shortstaffed at their Washington Bureau.
It was nothing to do with that.
They didn't cover it because, as their little slogan puts it on their front page, all the news that's fit to print.
And they didn't regard these stories as, quote, fit from their particular perspective.
Now, is that a good business strategy?
No.
The New York Times is junk stock.
The Washington Post loses $1.10 on every copy it sells.
This is not an effective business strategy, even for the left, because if you're left-wing, if you're seriously left-wing, you want to get your news from people who are going to stick it to the right and tell you everything that's going on and all the rest of it, which is why these guys prefer the daily costs and the huffing most and all the rest of it.
So the New York Times is essentially, by not covering the story, attempting to cater to the nice, fluffy, moderate liberal who doesn't want her illusions discombobulated.
So if you're like a grade school teacher somewhere in some nice Connecticut suburb and you want to think that all the clapped out liberal pieties that have inflicted disaster on the world everywhere they've been tried and are utterly stale and shop-worn and 40 years old and aren't getting any better,
if you want to still believe in all the fluffy bunny liberal pieties, the New York Times says, don't worry, buy us, buy our newspaper, and we won't cover any of these unpleasant stories about how the nice community organization group so closely tied to nice President Obama is in fact bringing in 13-year-old child sex slaves from El Salvador.
Because that wouldn't sound so nice, would it?
I mean, even no matter how left-wing and progressive you are, even like child sex slaves doesn't sound that nice.
So we won't tell you any of that, and therefore your liberal illusions will not be discombobulated.
And that's the niche that the New York Times is going for.
I don't think, by the way, they can certainly present an image of a politician, but when he actually gets elected and he's out there, then the real guy comes into play.
And that's where Obama's mistake has been.
That Obama's initial reaction, you know, when things go wrong, when his numbers start dropping, when he can't get his policies through, go on TV, give some more speeches, hold a joint session of Congress, give a press conference.
He's simply not that interesting to be there 24-7.
I mean, people learn that the hard way.
It's easy.
If you're in a dictatorship like Colonel Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi can ramble on for hours, and if you disagree with him, he can have you killed.
In the United States, it's more difficult.
You can ramble on saying the same thing over and over at 100 and I think it's up to 115 interviews and speeches he's given about healthcare now.
And okay, he's not going to have you killed, but he gets the message.
He ought to be getting the message by now that you find him boring on this subject.
If he's got nothing new to say, if he has to do five interviews to make up for the big speech, the big speech was supposed to sell healthcare to us.
That bombed.
So he then goes and does five Sunday morning shows to explain what he meant to say, what he was trying to say in the big speech that bombed.
And the five interviews bombed.
They get his numbers anyway.
So then he goes on the David Letterman show.
And there's just too much of him.
Nobody is that interesting.
Real celebrities.
We often hear that he's the celebrity president.
Real celebrities do not expose themselves in that way round the clock all day, every day.
If you look at it, I don't care who you Barbara Streisand, I don't care for one way or the other, except I think she's absolutely right about this, that you don't go around agreeing to every single interview, doing every single radio show, doing every single TV show, non-stop round the clock.
You just wear out your welcome.
And so I think once the media cannot protect a president who keeps making the same mistake and getting out there and getting on TV and hogging primetime TV all the time.
Mark Stein, in for rush.
Let's go to Ted.
Ted in Keita, Keeta Kyushu.
Kita Kyushu, which is not in North Dakota, but apparently is in Japan.
Ted, you're live from Japan on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hey, Mark Stein, your words are golden.
Great to talk to you.
Great.
I'm always glad to have listeners in Japan.
What time of day is it over there?
Is it the middle of the night, or what time is it?
It's 2:41 in the morning.
Wow.
So you've just come back from one of those wild Tokyo karaoke bars where you've been singing hits of the 80s until the small hours.
Is that it?
Not at all.
I'm a homebody staying here with my wife and daughter.
All right.
Good for you.
What's on your mind, Ted?
Well, it galls me to see President Obama treat the UN as a credible partner, especially with our national security at stake, because I blame the United Nations Security Council for the war in Iraq.
I see that Bush signed Resolution 1441 in good faith and had the corrupt beneficiaries of Saddam's oil for food bribes signed it in good faith as well, then Saddam would have feared real consequences for violating the terms of her surrender.
If the 15 members formed a solid wall, there would have been no violations.
If there are no violations, there's no war.
So I blame it on the corruption of the United Nations.
Yes, it's a failed international system.
That's the reality.
Saddam understood it.
He gamed the entire system, as you mentioned, in the UN food program, where he basically corrupted key officials in Kofi Annan's inner circle.
And what did that tell him?
That told him that he had nothing to fear from the so-called international community when it came to what he wanted to do there.
So you're right.
Exactly.
The international system failed.
President Obama is now saying, oh, no, don't worry, we're going to make it work this time.
Do you think that's going to happen?
Not at all.
I think it's going to be more of the same.
I think we're going to get shivved in the back by the United Nations again, because, like you said earlier, I liked your analogy about the ice cream and the fecal matter.
I think that we're going to get the fecal matter in our breakfast cereal.
This is becoming a bit too much of a theme for the day, I think.
It's like we ought to go back to the Wego Wednesday format rather than the fecal Thursday format.
We really ought to.
But Ted, here's my thing on the UN.
You're absolutely right on this.
But it's not just that it failed in Iraq, and it will fail with the Sudanese genocide, and it will fail with the Iranian nuclear program.
It fails even with things that aren't politically contentious, like the tsunami.
The tsunami hit, and the UN couldn't do anything.
They held press conferences.
When room service had been restored to the first-class hotels in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, they flew out there a couple of weeks later and held press conferences there.
The people who made things happen were the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy.
They're the only people who actually made things happen, who restored the water supply, who saved lives.
And that's not a politically contentious thing.
I mean, even the French aren't pro-Tsunami, so there's no kind of percentage in it for these Machiavellian members of the Security Council, and yet it's still failed.
It's a dysfunctional system, and no serious nation on earth should do more than pay lip service to it.
Mark Stein, in for rush on the EIB network.
More in a moment.
Mark Stein in for rush on the EIB network.
Rush will be back tomorrow for Open Line Friday.
The question is: even if you invest time in the United Nations, what are you going to get to show for it?
The reality is of the situation in Sudan.
The criticism of Iraq, for example, was that George Bush was the big, swaggering, unilateralist cowboy.
And because he was the big, swaggering, unilateralist cowboy, he came up with his coalition of the willing.
He had the British, the Spanish, the Australians, and a few others.
And he went in and he toppled the dictator and he liberated 20 million Muslims.
And Sudan, on the other hand, he went the multilateral route.
He went through the Security Council.
I don't know when that started.
I think it was around about the same year as Iraq.
Basically, Iraq invasion was 2003.
This happened a few months later.
They started macheteing people to death.
They're not a high-tech enemy.
If you're up against people who use machetes, who ride in on horses, the Janjaweed militia, and they kill and rape all these people.
And George Clooney is up there saying, we need to do something about it.
We need to do something about Sudan.
So George W. Bush says, well, let's go all multilateral.
So we sit around now for half a decade in the United Nations trying to get a strong resolution out of the United Nations that will actually make one jot of difference to anybody being macheted to death in the Sudan.
Meanwhile, the corpses pile up.
By the time we get the resolution, everybody will be dead and there'll be no one to save.
So problem solved.
That's what happens when the left picks up, takes up your cause.
Now, they love Sudan.
I was in Massachusetts a few weeks ago, and somebody was having a bake sale for Sudan.
A bake sale for Sudan.
That's great.
How many bake sales do you think you have to hold for Sudan to save one life?
I saw an advertisement in the paper for Out West.
They were having an interpretive dance, some kind of interpretive dance event for Sudan in Salt Lake City.
That's great.
How many interpretive dance events do you think you have to save one life in Sudan?
That's the reality.
If you go the UN route, everybody will die.
But don't worry about it.
Kofi Annan got his guy to make a big report on what was happening in Sudan, and they issued a report saying, don't worry, it's not genocide.
It's just hundreds of thousands of people dead, but it doesn't technically meet the UN definition of genocide, so we don't have to do anything about it.
No, it wasn't a hate crime.
It wasn't a hate crime.
They'd be doing something about it if Colonel Gaddafi had pinned it on the Jews, then it would be a hate crime and they would do something about it.
But they couldn't, it wasn't a hate crime, wasn't genocide.
Meanwhile, the Sudanese guy, this is the guy, the government that's supporting the Janjaweed fellas with the machetes on horseback, killing all the villagers.
The Sudanese guy, Sudan gets elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
That is how effective the United Nations Human Rights Council is.
The people who breach human rights are all sitting on it.
And this guy, this Sudanese guy, never let it be said, by the way, that these Sudanese mass murderers don't have a terrific sense of humor.
This Sudanese guy was asked what would be his priority during his term on the United Nations Human Rights Council, and he said, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
That's great, isn't it?
Even the Sudanese guy gets it.
He understands that the UN is a joke.
It's a joke.
It's a fraud.
And no responsible leader of the United States should be investing serious time in it.
Listen to these statistics.
This is from a couple of years back, looking at the votes in the General Assembly.
The Arab League members of the UN voted against the US 88.7% of the time.
Well, you know, they're those Arab dictators.
They're not great friends of ours.
The ASEAN members, that's the Asian group, members, voted against the U.S. position 84.5% of the time.
The Islamic Conference members voted against the U.S. position 84.1% of the time.
The African members voted against the U.S. position 83.8% of the time.
The non-aligned movement voted against the U.S. position 82.7% of the time.
And European Union members voted against the US position 54.5% of the time.
Yay, go Europe.
America's 54.5%.
No, no, wait a minute.
No, 45.5% friends.
So you can invest all the time in you want there, and maybe you'll get that the African member vote 83.8% against you down to what, 78%?
This is a waste of time.
It's a dysfunctional system and no United States president should be dignifying it as anything other than that.
Mark Stein, in for rush on the EIB network.
Lots more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has been speaking at the UN and a very different kind of speech.
It's tough, honest, going down very coolly, one would have to say from the reaction of the other world leaders and other delegations in the room.
But it's honest.
And I think that's what you need when you get the world together, when you get the parliament of man together in one room, you've got to speak the truth to them.
It's hard.
You're telling them things they don't want to hear.
That's what President Bush did when he made his speech to them in the fall of 2002.
He said, It's time for the United Nations either to decide that these resolutions mean something or to accept that it will be entirely irrelevant.
The United Nations chose to go the path of irrelevance, and now Barack Obama is not doing what President Bush did and Prime Minister Netanyahu did, but he is dignifying this dead husk.
Real people die all around the world because of these clapped-out, mushy, fluffy delusions that are peddled by the United Nations.
▲
Export Selection