All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:38
March 12, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
Just another foreign mercenary in the Republican Party's war on women.
Speaking of wars on women, there's a lot of it about.
A military court in Egypt has acquitted an army doctor accused of carrying out forced virginity tests on women protesters.
This is a case that happened in that Arab Spring that everybody was hot for about a year ago.
In Tahrir Square, Samira Ibrahim and five other women were arrested during a protest in the square just after the fall, some weeks after the fall of Hosni Mubarak.
And they complained that they were forced by the Egyptian army while they were in detention to submit to a so-called virginity test from male doctors.
The army initially denied these tests had taken place, but Amnesty International subsequently found that a senior general speaking anonymously had admitted that they had happened.
And it turns out that, yes, they had happened.
Now, these virginity tests, so-called, are in effect a kind of form of sexual violation.
But the Egyptian court has just ruled that, in fact, it is entirely legal.
It's acquitted these doctors and has effectively sanctioned these so-called virginity tests and said that it has no problem with them.
The judge said he made the ruling based on my conscience, quote, based on my conscience.
And it is interesting, by the way, to see the things that Hillary Clinton today is talking about.
What is it, International, whatever it is, International Women's Day.
She's comparing protesters in Burma with students at Georgetown Law School.
There is a real war on women going on in the world today.
So-called virginity tests, which are in fact a form of legalized rape in the new post-Arab Spring Egypt.
And oddly enough, oddly enough, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to have anything to say about that.
And Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem don't seem to have anything to say about that either.
So there is a war on women out there, but it's not one that the feminists seem to be very interested in talking about.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
Oh, just one thing before I forgot to mention when I was talking about my appearance in Toronto on April 24th.
Of all things, I'm actually sitting in.
I'm filling in for Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney was scheduled to be appearing at the Metro Centre.
And then for one reason or another, I don't quite know all the ins and outs of it, but he decided he didn't want to.
It's too dangerous to go to Canada.
This is a guy.
He goes to Afghanistan.
And I think there was some kind of attempt on his life there.
They blew something up.
But he didn't mind going to Afghanistan.
I'll be blown up.
But apparently Canada is too dangerous.
He didn't want to go to Toronto.
So I'm actually winding up, sitting in for Dick Cheney, which is nice.
If it works out, I may become, if I do good filling in for Dick Cheney this time around, I may become chairman of Halliburton.
So we'll see how that works out.
That's what's going on in the Arab Spring, by the way.
A war on women, a war on women.
The Muslim brothers are creating a society in which women who in the secular Egypt that prevailed until now, women are going to be third-class citizens.
Let's talk about what happened in Afghanistan, where a U.S. soldier is in custody for killing 12 civilians, men, women, and children, in remote parts of Kandahar province.
By the way, a part of the world where no combat operations were in place.
So it's not one of these things where they're in the middle of some shootout and something goes horribly wrong.
And then they and it's one of these acts of war that it's in the business, in the fog of war, something goes hideously wrong.
It doesn't seem to be anything like that.
But let me just say something about Afghanistan.
The soldiers, the Western troops in Afghanistan, have a completely thankless task.
Two Western leaders I've spoken to in recent weeks both use the same phrase to describe what's going on in Afghanistan.
They use the phrase crusader forts, which is a reference, as you can tell, to the Crusade.
If you go around the Middle East, you'll see these Crusader forts, which is like fortresses where the Christian occupiers lived at the height of the Crusades, and they ventured out beyond them.
But in a sense, they lived in their forts and life went on beyond the forts.
And that's what Afghanistan is.
Inside these Western military bases, there's Coca-Cola, there's McDonald's hamburgers, and outside the Crusader forts, life goes on.
And it's very familiar to those of us from imperialist societies because empires in decline do the same thing.
They retreat to their barracks.
It happened to the British in Aden, which is now Yemen.
They retreat to the barracks.
They venture out ever more rarely in ever more heavily protected convoys.
But essentially, they are not part of that society.
You cannot win the hearts and minds of a people when you're living in Crusader forts.
That's the problem.
That's the first problem in Afghanistan.
Secondly, the problem in Afghanistan is that you can't win the hearts and minds anyway.
It's really not possible.
You're dealing with two completely different mindsets that do not really intersect on enough common terrain for you to have anything in common.
And so what we have now in Afghanistan, which throughout the whole period of active fighting in Iraq, active combat operations in Iraq, the Democrats in particular insisted was the good war.
This was the good war.
This was where we should be directing our resources.
Iraq was a distraction.
Afghanistan was where we should be.
For the most part, we accomplished what we had to accomplish in Afghanistan 10 years ago now.
That's to say, we destroyed the camps.
We destroyed the camps of the Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
We removed the Taliban.
The rest of it, we have very little interest in.
Is it possible to turn Afghanistan into any kind of functioning society?
Probably not.
But is it possible to turn Afghanistan into any kind of functioning society under the rules of engagement which NATO forces have in Afghanistan?
Definitely not.
Definitely not.
In Afghanistan, the Western world, the superpower, chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
And there is simply no way that you can actually take those conditions and impose any kind of vision of what you think a functioning society ought to be on Afghanistan.
So whether or not it's even something worth doing, you can definitely not do it under the present strategy.
And I don't know what happened to this guy.
I don't know why a U.S. soldier suddenly decides to venture off his base and go on a killing rampage of civilians in Afghanistan.
But I'll tell you this, that when you look at what Western troops are asked to do in Afghanistan, they're living a hellish existence.
They're living a kind of schizophrenic existence where they've got a simulacrum of their home society inside those Crusader forts.
Very specific ones.
The Australians have Krispy Kreme Doughnuts because that's what they prefer.
The Canadians have Tim Horton's doughnuts on their base.
That's what they prefer.
The Americans, I take it, of Dunkin' Donuts.
You know, so they're living in these little mini Canadas, mini Americas, mini Australias in these Crusader forts.
And outside, when they go outside beyond those forts, they're in a society that is deeply hostile to them, that doesn't understand them, in fact.
That 200 years ago, during the time of the First Afghan War, in the 19th century, in the First Afghan War that the British fought, the fellow, the upcountry Pushtun goatherd, could at least see that the British soldier was more or less a more sophisticated version of him.
Now, when you see our guys stagger out in the full robocop, they look to the average Pushtun goatherd like the alien invaders who zapped the White House in the film Independence Day.
In other words, there is no connection, whatever connection there was between the Pushtuns and the British in the 19th century, there's absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Pushtuns now and these highly skilled, technologically advanced Western forces in Afghanistan.
So we cannot build nations there.
We're not living in Afghanistan.
We're not even intersecting with the hearts and minds.
So what the hell is the point of being there?
They issue this stupid book, Three Cups of Tea, this entirely fraudulent book where this guy has fantasies about going and seeing Mother Teresa's corpse and all kinds of things that couldn't happen.
They actually issue this book to the officer corps.
The Pentagon issues this book to the officer corps heading to Afghanistan.
It issues a pile of therapeutic babble that's perfectly fine if you plug in your book on Oprah, but is a completely idiotic document on which to base strategy in one of the most dangerous and primitive and barbarous parts of the world.
And that is at issue here.
That is the issue here.
The problem in Afghanistan is not lack of money, not lack of men, not lack of materials.
These are the best trained, best equipped, best funded army that has ever set foot on that barren soil.
It has everything, everything, except the one thing it needs, which is strategic clarity.
It has everything except strategic clarity.
And that is why the mission is a complete waste of time.
And it is a tragedy.
As I said, I don't know the circumstances that drove this guy out of his Crusader fort and to gun down 12 people.
We presumably will get to learn something about it in the days and weeks ahead.
But as things stand, this war is going from one pathetic, tragic, hideous turn to another.
And the brilliant campaign of fall 2001 by the much maligned Don Rumsfeld, he used all kinds of ingenious things.
Guys on horseback with the Northern Alliance, he had special forces on horseback with the Northern Alliance using GPS to call in unmanned drone attacks.
Brilliant, brilliant.
They're going to be talking about this in staff colleges around the world for the next half century.
Everything that happened afterwards just dribbled down into the usual ineffective transnational school traffic crossing guard operation in one of the most hellish pieces of barren sod on the face of the planet.
And the tragedy of this is that a brilliant operation in the fall of 2001 by the discredited Rumsfeld's Pentagon will now, 10 years later, be just the umpteenth unwon war by the United States.
It's getting on for two-thirds of a century since this nation has unambiguously won a war.
You know, you know the roll call.
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Moggad issue, the helicopters in the Iranian desert, and on the other side of it, I don't know what you got, Grenado, maybe, and deposing what's his name in Nicaragua.
Two-thirds of a century since the most lavishly funded, equipped, and trained military on the planet has unambiguously won a war.
The lack of strategic clarity when the United States goes to war is actually something that other nations around the world tap into very clearly.
The Chinese in Beijing, in Moscow, in Tehran, they look at this and they understand that.
It's a crisis for the United States.
When you haven't unambiguously won a war in two-thirds of a century, something is badly wrong and it ought to be addressed, and nobody is addressing it.
Mark Stein in for Rush 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Let's go to Bill in Granite Bay, California.
Bill, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, how you doing, Mark?
I'm doing...
Okay, okay.
Good, good.
I'm getting covered up.
Well, I'm a long-time listener.
I've been on the air here with Rush a couple times ever since he was out in Rio Linda out here in Sacramento.
But more to my point, I just wanted to get a factually correct argument going on the First Amendment and the Catholic churches disallowing contraceptives to be used through their health care.
What part of the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights allows an employer to deny the rights of anyone, Mark?
Well, that depends on what you think is a right.
Now, you think the right to contraceptive care is a right, is it?
Which Bill of Rights is that in?
Well, no, that's not exactly my point.
Actually, the First Amendment is what we're talking about for churches having the freedom of religion.
And the First Amendment actually has five rights in it, but we won't get into the other four at this point.
We're just talking about the first one.
The follow-up on that is that the Ninth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all prohibit or basically, what's it say?
Let's see.
The Ninth Amendment basically says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, which is what we're talking about here.
These rights of the church aren't the rights of the church to put their agenda or their opinion on somebody else.
That's not why we have rights in this country.
Well, no, no, no, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
We have in this country are issued to us individually.
They aren't issued to somebody else who then issues them to us as an at-will basis on how they feel.
No, and I'm agreed with you on that.
I said an hour ago that my definition of my understanding of rights comes from Magna Carta.
Rights are restraints the subject places on the king.
In other words, they're things that the government can't do for you.
The U.S. Constitution is the masterpiece of negative rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right to the people and petition the government for resistance of grievances.
Yes.
Now, if your free exercise, you're enjoying your free exercise of religion by setting up a Catholic college operating or a Catholic hospital operating to Catholic hospital on Catholic principles, should you have to, for example, provide abortions in a Catholic hospital?
That would be a particular right of each person in that hospital.
It's not up to the Catholic Church to say we have basically what happened here was when the Supreme Court misconstrued the First Amendment to allow corporations to be considered people or corporations.
Don't get into the corporation.
But it's nothing to do with the corporation thing.
The Catholic Church.
Finish your point.
Thank you very much.
They allowed that corporations to become a people or, for say, a person.
This is not so.
They do not live and die like people.
They do not have a normal lifespan or the name or life struggles of people.
They live indefinitely.
They are not people.
Now, since we have corporations being considered people, now we have this essence of the Catholic Church.
Oh, come on, corporation.
Hey, Bill, Bill.
Deny people.
No, no, no.
Come on, Bill.
The Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, which, by the way, is the oldest institution, continuously existing institution in the Western world.
It's not a corporation.
Its claim to its freedom of conscience does not rest on the fact that it's Catholic Church Enterprises Global, Inc.
That's not what it's standing on.
It's not standing on any recent Supreme Court decision.
It's standing on the first phrase of the First Amendment, which is two centuries old.
So the corporations law, don't go down this Bill, you're smarter than this.
Don't drag in this Supreme Court corporations law from the day before yesterday.
It's standing on the plain language of the first sentence.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Mark, that says employees from an employment discrimination based upon an employer that cannot base your based race, color, religion, or sex protect most U.S. employees from employment discrimination, which is exactly what we're talking about.
And this is not from yesteryear.
This is from 1964.
1964.
That is not a constitutional act.
It does not trump the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
We'll return to this in just a moment, Bill, because this is fundamental.
It's fundamental to where the United States is headed, whether your vision prevails or my vision prevails, because one of them has got to lose.
We'll come back in a moment.
Yes, Rushback tomorrow.
We were talking to Bill just before the break and having a discussion about the First Amendment and the freedom of conscience, the free exercise of religion.
Whether the state can compel, there is no freedom of religion.
If the state can compel a Catholic hospital to perform abortions, if the state can compel a Catholic college to offer forms of contraception that the church does not believe in, there's no freedom of religion.
The clearest way to understand this is to imagine if Obama Commissar Sebelius had decided that bacon had marvelous health properties for you and that mosques had to be and halal butchers had to be compelled to offer bacon sandwiches to customers.
To raise the question is to illustrate its absurdity.
Commissar Sebelius would never require a mosque to offer bacon sandwiches, would never require a hal-al butchers to offer bacon sandwiches.
Why, then, should the state be able to compel Catholic institutions, or indeed any institution or any employer, to violate their conscience?
What say you to that, Bill?
Well, I say anecdotes are great, Mark, and those are all anecdotal situations.
Hey, it's not an anecdote.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, wait a minute, Bill.
It's not an anecdote.
I'm not going to let you talk over, people.
Go ahead.
No, no, no.
Just hang on a minute.
I didn't make an anecdote.
I made an analogy.
So don't introduce.
I understand that.
And you know what?
It's an analogy.
As a chiropractor, I try to stay away from anecdotal analogies all day long.
I hear them from my patients who say, well, my Uncle Bob.
No, Uncle Bob.
No, Uncle Bob was involved in this analogy.
There is no Uncle Bob.
It's an analogy.
Of course not.
You're not going to make that.
Just the same thing here, Mark, is the claim to religious freedom is a slippery slope.
You really need to watch what you're allowing a religion to do.
Like, you know, basically, if they find out that, okay, let's say this, we leave it the way it is.
Let's say that they find out that one of their employees went outside of their system and had an abortion.
Do they have the right to fire that person now?
No, I don't think they do.
Although you're getting it, you're getting an insurance.
You're right.
That person's right to have that abortion.
Now, if this, if this, likewise, if this hospital, you're saying, doesn't want to perform abortions, then, okay, then they don't perform them at that hospital.
But the insurance that that person has by being employed by that Catholic institution or whatever it is, that insurance, they could take that insurance and go anywhere they want to have their rights restored to them, if you will, so that they can live their normal life seeking their happiness and everything else that they want in America outside of their region.
Yeah, well, you know, there's no restrictions on that.
Anybody can get contraceptions up the wazoo in this society.
There's contraceptives everywhere.
They're dropping from the skies.
You walk outside, it's raining condoms.
It's nine bucks a month for birth control bills at Target, three miles from Georgetown, Georgetown University.
So we're talking here about a hypothetical situation because there is no crisis in this country.
This country is contracepted from Maine to Hawaii.
It's carpeted with contraceptives.
So the only issue here is what you would call the anecdotal one, and I would call the philosophical one, which is that a state, if the state can compel the archbishop to install a condom dispenser, it can compel you, Bill, of Granite Bay, California, to do anything it wants.
There is no individual liberty in such a landscape.
I look at the law of this country.
I don't look at anecdotes or how people feel.
No, no, no.
No, no.
There's no anecdotes.
No.
What's this with you and your anecdotes?
Bill, Bill, Bill, be quiet.
Bill, Bill, shush a minute.
Go ahead.
I have not mentioned a single anecdote.
There is no Uncle Bob.
No Uncle Bob has been harmed in the making of this radio program.
There's no anecdote.
We are discussing legal philosophy.
We are discussing it in the way the founders of the United States.
You start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that says they cannot discriminate against the people.
Boy, that's a long time ago.
Bill?
The 14th Amendment that says you have equal protection under the laws of this country.
Let's discuss what the laws actually say.
Let's discuss.
Yes, we're discussing.
We're discussing what the laws actually say.
Behind the golden microphone.
We're discussing what the laws actually say, Bill.
Here's my question to you, the chiropractor.
Let's say you're, I take it you're in favor of contraceptions.
I'm in favor of people's rights in this country, is what I'm in favor of.
Look, you know what's happening?
So suppose Commissar Sebelius comes to you and says that you have to offer a particular medical procedure you don't agree with.
Did you do that?
They have.
The state has.
They told me that I have to this year.
The law says that I must provide every new patient with basically an informed consent that says that a chiropractic adjustment may in within 10 million adjustments may cause two deaths.
I'm by law am forced to tell them how, even no matter how small a thousandth of 1% that these things are, I have to tell them that because they may make the choice that they don't want to come see me after they read that.
No, no, that's the law now.
So I have to tell you that.
Yeah, but that's not you being compelled to do that.
Yes, it is in jail.
What part of compulsion don't you understand?
No, you're being compelled to tell them that there's a risk to your procedure because we live in such an absurdly important thing.
What sort of medical procedure does that?
How many information is that?
You might treat their buttocks and they'll have a massive seizure and die.
And although it's a remote risk, you're obliged to tell them that.
Bill?
So I'm being compelled by my government to do things that I don't want to do, that I wouldn't normally do, that I tell people in the normal course of their day, maybe what's going on.
And being that I can only adjust 5 million people in my lifetime as a chiropractor, what that tells you is that you need to pick the right chiropractor.
But that aside, okay, I was afraid of the people who were adjusted just listening to me.
I was just going to put Obama last time around.
And the only reason I said that was because I couldn't.
Here's the problem, Bill.
Here's the problem.
And again, I come back to the same point.
That when the state can compel you to do things in violation of your conscience, in other words, if you do not have the conscience exemption, then there is no restraint whatsoever on state power.
Now, you gave me a Californian example.
And California, California is full of laws on everything.
And it's no surprise to find it regulates chiropractors as much as it regulates the ability of hardware stores in Ventura County.
They're forbidden from giving free coffee and donuts to their customers.
They were thinking of introducing a fitted sheet regime, making it against the law to put a non-elasticated sheet on a hotel bedroom in California.
In California, everything is against the law, and everybody is violating a zillion laws at any one time.
What we are talking here, though, what we are talking about here is core liberties, is the right to live your life according to your conscience.
And free societies give a certain deference to conscience in the public space.
We understand, for example, in war, there are Quakers who are conscientious objectors.
So we do not say you've got to put on a uniform and go and fight in violation of your conscience.
When you force institutions that do not wish to provide the forms of contraception that they regard as actually in breach of their faith, if you're a Catholic, any kind of non-marital sex is verboten and forbidden.
And to compel and to be compelled to provide the means for that is a violation of conscience.
And it tells you something about the coercive power of the state.
The coercive power of the state is transformative.
And that is why it should be used in limited ways.
And that is why when you have big government, it starts to get coercive in all kinds of small ways.
And people like Bill don't mind.
Don't mind because as long as we can have sex with anybody we want to have sex with, they don't mind that it infringes on this right and that right and that right.
He lives in California.
In California, sexual license is the only thing you don't need a license for.
Everything else you want to do, you've got to have a government permit for.
And so that has provided a huge cover for the shriveling, the shrinking of liberty.
And this is the most explicit assault upon it that has happened in recent times.
It's in naked breach of the First Amendment.
And they don't care.
They don't care because they think they can steamroll over it.
And even if it ever comes to the Supreme Court, they think they've got a good chance of winning it.
Oh, and by the way, let me add one other thing on this, because this is what is so insane about it.
I don't believe as an employer that I am responsible for the health of my employees.
I don't particularly want to know about my employees' sex lives.
I've got no interest in them.
And I think they should make private provision for that that doesn't involve me.
But we have now wound up.
Do you realize we have wound up with the worst of all worlds?
We're going to have the worst and most expensive healthcare system in the entire developed world.
Because there's something to be said for saying you can have a private healthcare system.
There's something to be said for the way they did it in Sweden and other European countries that the government takes care of everything.
It's a government system.
The government makes the decisions.
It's one size fits all and all the rest of it.
We now have a joke.
We have a joke private system in which employers, our main source of providing health care, is through employers, which is insane to start with.
Because, you know, what's the fact that you've got a gig at Walmart or Georgetown Law?
What's that got to do?
What's that got to do with your health?
That's where you go to work from 9 to 5.
Your health is 24-7, weekends and bang holidays.
Why is that the responsibility of your employer?
That's crazy.
But then to make it an employer mandate that comes under government compulsion is to pile a second insane third-party system on top of the existing third-party system.
We will wind up with the worst, most incompetent, most ineffective, most inefficient, and most expensive healthcare system in the developed world because of this.
And I'll say one other thing, too, by the way.
We've been talking about philosophical rights and fundamental rights with Bill in Granite Bay, California.
He didn't want to get into anecdotes.
I didn't do any anecdotes.
Didn't mention Uncle Bob.
He said when he was a chiropractor, he heard all these stories about Uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob did not feature in this.
But I'll put it in more basic terms.
We have the absurd situation.
Hillary Clinton today comparing a Georgetown law student with a political prisoner in Burma.
They're both brave women speaking out, said Hillary Clinton.
Do you realize how insulting that is to the political prisoner in Burma to be compared to a Georgetown law student?
Let's take that Georgetown law student.
Understand we're not meant to mention her name and all the rest of it, so I'm going to call her Mabel.
Mabel said that in the course of studying at Georgetown Law, the cost of birth control is $3,000.
Well, whoop-de-doo, the starting salary for a Georgetown law graduate, the starting salary in that Georgetown Law graduate's first job is $160,000 a year.
So $3,000 works out to the first week's salary of the Georgetown Law graduate.
So why doesn't Mabel or any other Georgetown law graduate who's finding it tough earning the $3,000 to pay for birth control?
Because, you know, in my day, it was different.
You know, I did a paper round to pay for my IUD.
I mean, it was different back then.
That's how we did it.
It was simpler times.
I understand.
It's all changed now.
But if you're at Georgetown Law and you can't afford the $3,000 for your birth control coverage, why don't you just go to the First National Bank of Georgetown and say, can you advance me $3,000 and I'll pay you back in the first week of my $160,000 a year job?
Erecting a vast new national mandate to supervise this is simply the insanity of the American model, which is to pile now.
We're piling one coercive government on an already inefficient employer-based health system.
This will be the most expensive, most disastrous healthcare system ever devised anytime, anywhere in planetary history.
And you can check back in five years' time on that and you'll see I'm correct.
Mark Stein and Farash, more ahead.
Yeah, we're one big national family of 300.
Well, except we're the right kind of family where when you say, Mom, I'd like to go on the pill, the big government mommy just gives it to you.
That's how it all works out.
Emos.
Do you know emos?
They're these rather depressed young alienated teens who listen to dreary music and dress in black and have radical hairstyles.
They're being targeted in Iraq, right?
You thought Iraq's got Sunnis, it's got Shia, it's got Kurds.
That ought to be enough for anyone.
But now they've added emos to the situation.
And according to a report in the Associated Press, emos are being brutally killed at an alarming rate in Iraq.
My daughter is at high school, and there's like some sort of sullen emos you see loafing around outside the schoolhouse in her school.
I had no idea they had them in Iraq, but they're being bludgeoned to death by militiamen, smashing in their skulls with heavy cement blocks.
In the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, 35-year-old Hassan is afraid to leave his home.
He plans on cutting his shoulder-length hair soon, but fears that his hormone-injected breast enhancements will be detected if he is stopped and patted down at one of the ubiquitous security checkpoints across the city.
Yeah, probably if you live in southern Baghdad, probably getting hormone-injected breast enhancements is not an idea.
Although, actually, these emo guys dress mainly in black, so if they were just to convert it into the full burqa, they'd probably get away with it.
This is, by the way, the world we have made.
This is Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Iraq, half the Christian population has fled since 2003 on America's Watch.
In Afghanistan, the State Department reported that the last Christian church in Afghanistan was razed to the ground in 2010.
This happened on America's Watch.
Mark Stein for Rush, more ahead.
This is Mark Stein in Farash.
I've had enough.
I'm outraged with myself for associating with myself, and I've decided to suspend myself.
It's disgusting.
I hate myself for waging the war on women.
It's outrageous.
I've had it.
I'm suspending myself.
I'm out of here.
Rush will return tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection