Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:00:00. Galen Ad: Gutter Helmet Ad: National Mortgage Ad: Remote Receptionist from The Intelligent Office Ad: Lennox Financial Mortgage Promo: Clear Channel Intro Theme Yes, my friends, we are here and wound up. Ready to unwind for the next three hours. The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, I am your host, Rush Limbaugh. And we are happy to be with you. Here's the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program today: 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address is rush@eibnet.com. Well, I came in today and I get a couple e-mails, "Boy, Rush, a slow news day. I don't know what you're gonna do with this day." Slow news day? I tell you what, fo- I've we have some stuff left over - In fact, let me do this right off the bat because this is something I want to not leave hanging. I mentioned this toward the end of the program yesterday. I said that I would be mentioning this. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:05:00. Galen Uh, URS Corporation, a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Senator Diane Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, landed an army contract Monday worth up to 600 million dollars. The award is to help with troop mobilization, weapons systems training and anti-terrorism efforts. It's the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in 3.1 billion, billion dollars during the next eight years. Billion with a "B". Government contracting has come under increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizens' groups with critics decrying the political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum serves on the company's board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm's stock. In a San Diego newspaper your host comes under a mild form of criticism today in a column written by former Congressman Lionel van Deerlin, who served in Congress for eighteen years. He was listed in this program earlier this week for several of you people called in here to chastise the Bush administration for awarding post-war Iraq contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel. And you were expressing concern; "How we gonna explain this, Rush? How do you explain it? Doesn't it look a little fishy?" And I went on to explain who else is gonna do this. Rose law firm doesn't exactly build bridges. Mr. Van Deerlin cites this quote in a mildly derisive way, goes on to point out that, uh - He mentions that I - look - I did this in broad daylight, in effect, under no attempt at secrecy, so what's - How can you say it's under the table, when it was done in broad daylight? He says; "Ah, maybe Limbaugh is right about this." As I say, it's only mildly derisive. He just mentions that even the ditto-heads were a little nervous about this, and I - your host, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling Maharushi was also a little worried about this. I wasn't, I just sought to explain it. So in light of this I just thought it would be important to point out that the army has awarded a huge contract in Iraq, for post-war work, to a company 24 percent owned by the husband of Senator Diane Feinstein, who of course is a Democrat Senator from California. Any questions? Any questions? Anybody want to probe this matter further? All right. Let's get on to this Rick Santorum business. I have been, I've been studying this, this morning. You know all this starts? You know how this started? I'm gonna tell you right how all this started. This started by a journalist getting the quote wrong. A journalist mis-quoting Senator Santorum, mildly, just the insertion of one word in parentheses, that Santorum didn't say and didn't imply, that kicked this thing off the launching pad. And I don't know, I've read a lot of the interview. It does sound to me that it's a bit contentious on the part of the reporters, female reporter from the Associated Press. Before we get to the quote, here's the latest in terms of Santorum's response. He is ignoring calls that he apologize and resign from his Senate leadership post as he defends comments that he made comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. And it's arguable that - I don't think he did that. This is - You know, there are so many people just out there waiting to be offended. I mean you know who these people are. They're all over the place. They span the political spectrum, left and right. This people. It's a cottage industry now. Sit out there, just wait to be offended. You know, that offends me. Thin-skinned little bigots out there. I mean, this is America, 2003. Grow up. We have freedom of speech here. But there is no right to go through life being un-offended. You can't have freedom of speech and at the same time have people not be offended by things. And when you're offended, it doesn't - it doesn't seem to me that you ought to over-react and demand that whoever offends you be sentenced to the gulag, for crying out loud. It's time to grow up and move on and forget it and understand it. The only way you let these things hurt you is if you betray that you've been hurt. Act like you've been - Of course, that's not what this is all about. This is about exacting political revenge and maybe getting rid of another Republican. Then I saw comparisons to this, what Senator Lott said. Come on, folks. Let's not over-react here, this is what people are doing. Santorum said, "My comments should not be mis-construed in any way as a statement on individual life-styles. Now, here's the incorrect quote: This is how - it runs again in this story on Santorum defending his remarks. Reuters, well, they print the incorrect quote. Here's the quote as it appeared originally and got all this going. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:10:00. Galen "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum was quoted as saying. You have the right to anything. Now the court is considering if the Texas law violates privacy rights. And unfairly targets same-sex couples. [legitimate interest in setting moral standards. In his statement yesterday, Santorum said, when discussing the pending Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, "My comments were specific to the right to privacy, and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws." And this really is the fundamental here, and it is one that is still up for intellectual grabs. So many people think the Constitution has in it a specific right to privacy and it doesn't. That so-called right to privacy wasn't established until the Griswold case, in Connecticut, that had to do with contraception. But even after that decision - Bork got into big trouble in his hearings over this. I say that's the wrong way to get into trouble. Liberals zeroed in on Bork, trying to cite the fact that there is still argument over the right to privacy. Santorum's point is, the right to privacy can take you to places you may not intend. And just because two people inside a home consent to do something, anything, does that mean it's OK? If two people consent, in the privacy of their homes, does that mean they can do anything they want? Now where this quote is wrong, and some of you may consider this a minor point, but it's not, given the hubbub, which has followed. Again, the incorrect version is this: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual parentheses gay end parentheses sex within your home." He never said "gay". In his actual quote, he never said "gay". Now, don't get the wrong idea about that. You could assume that Senator Santorum meant any kind of sex outside of heterosexual. By not zeroing in - The point that has to be made here - The AP inserting the word "gay" sex in his quote, is how they then make the comparison to gay sex, to polygamy, to bigamy, to incest, to adultery. If you don't put the word, "gay" in there, then you're not associating gay sex specifically with all these things. This is what the gay community is upset about. They're upset that their form of sex, homosexuality, has been equated with bigamy, with adultery, with polygamy, incest and all that. And that's not what Santorum did. The actual quote does not have the word "gay" in it. The actual quote is this: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything. Now, as a legal matter, he's got a point. And then you further go; OK, if you say he's got a point with this, then you get to what this case in Texas is all about, and that is this: does the state or the Federal Government then, A] have the right to make these kind of laws? and then B] do they have the right to enforce them? Are we actually gonna have state or federal officials knocking on people's doors checking on the kind of sex they're having in their homes? And Santorum never once, in anything I can see, advocates that. He just says that any sex, anything that goes on behind closed doors under the quote - unquote imprimatur of consensual means that people can do anything they want. And it's a slippery slope on down where, sooner or later, it's gonna go beyond the bounds of sex. You can do anything in your home, as long as it's consensual, even if you're agreeing with yourself, because there's a right to privacy. Where's the limit on this? He's simply making a legal argument here. What has happened is this insertion of the word, "gay" has inflamed the human rights coalition - what's the name of the group? - I don't want to offend them, Human Rights Something or Other it's the name of the group. Ellen DeGeneres, Anne Heche were constantly awarded by this bunch. I can't remember their official name. Nevertheless, it is the insertion of the word, "gay" that's got them inflamed here, because they're now assuming that Santorum equated homosexual sex with all these other deviant forms of sex that he listed. "Oh, I'm outraged!" "Oh, I'm offended!" "Oh, he's gotta be stopped!" "Oh, he's gotta be demoted!" "He should quit the Senate" Whatever it is. And it's clear he wasn't identifying any particular form of sex, but it's also clear that he means anything outside of heterosexual procreation, this sort of thing type sex. That's what he considers to be non-deviant normal anything outside of that. His only point is that he was trying to use descriptive terms here to illustrate how far we'd go. He does go on to say that all this stuff is gonna rip apart the fabric of the family, and society if there are no limits here. There have to be limits and the right to privacy, simply does not say or does not guarantee that there are no limits on what you can do. If the right to privacy - This is why this is intellectually open argument, folks. If the right to privacy is Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:15:00. Kim ...privacy supersedes so many things, than all other laws are subordinated to it. And that's what his argument basically is, he also said look, I- and I- this is a fine point and he's going to have to do some dancing here to explain this one to people. But he is saying he's got no problems with homosexuals, he's got no problem with homosexuality. But he does have a problem with homosexual acts. So that's- he might be saying, " I have no problem if you're gay, I've got no problem with you being gay- but I do have a problem with you engaging in gay sex." Well then, are gay people not supposed to have sex? Is that what he's saying? Uh, he'll have to answer that himself- I wouldn't know how he would answer that. No, I'm not going to put words in his mouth- *laughing*- no pun intended here, ladies and gentlemen. But clearly, this right to- this is why I bring it up a lot of times on this program, this right to privacy business. Cause a lot of people assume that it is a blanket authority to do anything you wanna do- and it isn't. And right now it's only being discussed in terms of it's applicablity to sex, but you can take this out into behaviors beyond that and get yourself into a real bad argument with some people. At any rate, let's take a brief time out here. Uh, not because I wanna take a time out, I frankly think I'm on a roll. But we gotta take a time out here because, my friends, the programming format deigns that's it's necessary we do an EIB profit center operational pause. promo for Rush's show station id ad: spoken ad by Rush for HotWire.com ad: Oreck vacuums ad: Afrin nasal spray promo for the morning news show ad: National Mortgage ad: Pike Family Nurseries Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:20:00. Kim ad: Pike Family Nurseries station id Rush: Uh, by the way- uh, ladies and gentlemen, you might be interested in knowing, uh- the reporterette, the info babe who interviewed Rick Santorum. Name is Laura Jakes Jordan, she is the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager. Did you know THAT, ladies and gentlemen? The wife of John Kerry's campaign manager is the AP info babe who interviewed Senator Santorum. Now, he agreed to it- it was a consensual interview. Well, it was- I mean, we have to describe it as it was, it was a consensual interview and is- well, I tell you what. Yeah, he got screwed in this consensual interview, but I'm gonna tell you something. Uh, in a consensual interview where both people agree, I guess either participant can do anything they wanna do. Laura Jakes, whatever her name is- Laura Jakes Jordan can make up words that he said cause they all agreed to the interview. I mean, you- how far we gonna take this? How far are we gonna take this consensual equaling right to privacy and all. I have a couple little sound bites here, uh- first is a Santorum montage. He was on the Fox News Channel last night and the- this is a little response to the reaction of his interview. Um, and he told the reporter quote, if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, adultery- you have the right to anything. This is a montage of his reaction. Santorum: "I do not need to give an apology based on what I said and what I'm saying now. I think this is a legitimate public policy discussion. This is what the state of Texas argued in their brief. These are not, you know- you know, ridiculous comments. These are very much, a very important point with respect to- I feel bad about it, I'm very disappointed that- that the article was written in the way it was and it has been construed the way it has. Rush: And he appeared this morning on MSNBC, there was a town meeting in Pennsylvania and he also had this to say about his comments. Santorum: "The statement that I made that was widely quoted basically is exactly what Justice White in the Hardwick case in 1986 stated as the reason for the Supreme Court finding the sodomy laws that were in question before the court in 1986 to be constitutional. Justice White said virtually the same thing that I said, that if you allow any kind of exception... if you tell the states that they cannot regulate in this area, because anything that is consensual within the home is not- ability- you cannot regulate that, then you leave open the door for a variety of other sexual activities to occur within the home and not be regulated. That's what Justice White said, that is the law of the land. That is the Supreme Court in 1986 and the majority opinion said that. I simply repeated that." Rush: Well, but you can't forget that the reporter included the word gay, which he didn't say in his quote- which then associated gay with all these other deviant practices and that led to the outrage from the gay community that we're all seeing now. ad: Trim-Spa ad: GM Certified Used Vehicles station id Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:25:00. Galen WGST News Ad: Atlantic State Bank Promo: WGST Ad: Green Heating & Cooling, with Bryant Air Conditioners Promo: WGST 96 Rock Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:30:00. Galen Intro Well, if that's what you want, you are in the right place. The simple truth, the complex made understandable. EIB network and El-Rushbo, here from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. As you would think, we have some telephone response to this, so we'll start in Mount Pleasant, Michigan, with Don. Hello sir, thank you for calling. [Don] Hi, Rush, nice to talk to you. My point was on the Santorum quote. Without the word "gay", inserted editorially, are you saying that the government can regulate consensual sex between me and my wife, as a married couple? [Rush] No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not the point. I didn't say that. Wait a second, I didn't say that. That was not the point. What I did say was - Let's take a look at who Santorum is, a practicing Catholic, okay? [Don] Yep. [Rush] So we may have to assume a couple of things here, but they may be reasonable to assume. Given that he is a practicing Catholic, and when his quote says - Let me find it again, here - "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home - [Don] That would be me and my wife. [Rush] He is not including traditional, consensual, heterosexual sex for the purpose of pleasure or procreation. [Don] Then that means the gay insertion with parentheses clarifies the quote, to my mind. [Rush] No, I really think that everybody, by harping on this, is missing the larger point of what Santorum is talking about here. I really do. I'm not trying to skirt the controversy. I think there's a much larger issue that he's addressing himself to here. He's not, this is not about Santorum trying to tell you and your wife that you can't have consensual sex in your house, for whatever reason you're doing, either pleasure or procreation. But to him, he considers that to be, I don't want to use the word "normal", but he understands that to be what's acceptable and what everybody would assume, as a practicing Catholic, he means. But this case is specifically about the possibility here, that the U.S. Supreme Court will assert a constitutional right to all consensual sex in the home. He's worried about it. That's what this Texas case is. He's very concerned if the Supreme Court asserts a constitutional right to privacy regarding consensual sex in the home, then all of these consensual sexual behaviors will then be protected under the U.S. Constitution, and he thinks there are some bad moral results down the road for our culture. [Don] If you look at free speech, the Supreme Court has ruled it's not absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In the same way, I think this case involving a Texas sodomy statute is confined to the facts of that case, and therefore, I think he's going far afield if he thinks the Supreme Court is going to say even child molestation, incest would be consensual. I don't know - [Rush] Well, you might look at it that way. I, I - In regards to that, regardless how narrow or broad the decision here will be, in terms of its application to sexual behavior, this notion of a right to privacy is something that does need to be really examined, because in the area of abortion, for example, we hear all the time, one of the fundamental arguments that the pro-abortion crowd says is, the woman has the right to do with her body whatever she wants. She doesn't, according to U.S. law. We prohibit prostitution. That's a woman doing with her body whatever she wants, but it's illegal. Why? It's against the law. Some people favor the decriminalization of prostitution, even the full legalization of it, but as we say now, it's illegal. Also, anybody, male, female, or whatever, in doing drugs, hard drugs, cocaine or whatever, violating the drug laws in the spe- can't do that, either, even though, it's in the privacy of your home. Maybe not involving anybody else, directly. But, nevertheless, you can say in the right to privacy, I can do that. It's my body, I can do it. We've said no, you can't. What Santorum is saying here, is that there is not a constitutional right to sexual freedom. That's in essence, what he's arguing here. Now, when he says that you have to assume, as a practicing Catholic on his part, there is an accepted sexual - there's a reason for sex among consenting heterosexual adults and that's what his view of it is. And I think he's got some concerns here. But this thing's been blown up. Now if you compare homosexuality with some of these things like Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:35:00. Galen to me and some of the others. Incest, and this sort of thing. I mean, I think there are too many people just waiting to be offended who jumped on this, to assume Santorum meant something that he actually didn't say. So, it's a fine point. I understand this. But he has made it clear he's not gonna back down from this and that all he's doing is, in fact, quoting a previous judge, in a case back in 1986, who's offered the same theories and beliefs, concerns, whatever you want to call them. Cleveland is next. James, welcome to the EIB network. Hello. [James] Hey, Rush, how'ya doing today? [Rush] I'm fine, thank you. [James] A great honor to speak to you, sir. Regarding this right to privacy and consenting. If this is part of the slippery slope, if we go ahead and hold the right to privacy and consent paramount, then we better go ahead and draft Kevorkian and be ready for 10,000 of his imitators because is not assisted suicide a consenting act between two adults? [Rush] Now we got - We got a bad - We have James, a rotten cellular connection here with him, and I think I've got the crux of what you're saying. Of course the right to privacy does not convey all sorts of freedoms that otherwise would be proscribed by law. And to tell you the truth, some of the right to privacy crowd is seeking just that. The right to privacy is an end run around existing laws. Whether Santorum is addressing himself to that, we could take this thing into any direction we wanted to go. But my basic point here is, that he's brought up an interesting argument here, legal argument that by no means is settled. And it just now happens to be centered around sexual activity, but it has ramifications far beyond that. And that is the right to privacy. And, I don't know, you be the judge yourself, but take a look at the people that are really advocating this right to privacy as a paramount, as "There's no question about it - it's in there - the Constitution - why half the things in the Constitution wouldn't be there, Rush if there weren't an implied right to privacy, blah, blah, blah, blah." In most cases, in most instances, correct me if I'm wrong, as I know you will, based on the people I've spoken to, based on the people I've read, the right to privacy is an excuse. They employ the right to privacy or insert it, assert it, assert the right to privacy as an end around. So that's why it can be a slippery slope. But it really is, I think it's a fascinating legal argument. I think this is why you need incredible people as judges. And this right to privacy is a, I don't know, it's something unsettled, but to me it is a fascinating argument that as you can hear. If we stayed on this all day, which I don't want to do, but you'd be amazed, I predict, at the people on either side of this argument. You can type them. You could type the kind of people on either side. Almost in a stereotypical way. Who's next? Morrisville, North Carolina, David, welcome, sir, great to have you with us. [David] Hey, Rush how ya doing? [Rush] Fine, thank you. [David] Hey, I'm a black liberal, and I can tell you something that's gonna happen with my own party, and it infuriates me. And that is they're gonna compare what Senator Santorum has said with what Senator Trent Lott has said, and they are two totally different things. [Rush] Ah! Thank you, thank you. I applaud you. You are exactly right. In fact, they already are. [David] It infuriates me to no end, and when I sit down and talk to my friends, it's amazing how people can compare, you know, two things that are totally different. When, you know, what Trent Lott said which was someone referring, what I believe, is to someone's skin color, versus someone's behavior, be it right or wrong, to say, that's just the way they are. That's a whole 'nother argument, but, two totally different animals, and it's unbelievable how [Rush, interrupting] Now wait a minute, for people who may not understand it, why are they two totally different animals? For people who may not get your point, why, are you saying that one has no control over one's skin color, but one certainly does have control over one's behavior? [David] Exactly, Rush. I'm a black man, you're a white man, we are what we are. Joke. The gay and lesbian argument is; "Well, we are what we are as well." And that can be defec - I don't think, I think that is a concerted choice. You say, "That's right because I choose to behave in this way. I choose to do those things." I don't have a choice when I walk outside the door, what color I am. [Rush] Yeah. Well, granted. Although just for the sake of discussion, here, even on the homosexual side , some of them maintain it's not a choice. That's the way they are. Not oriented Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:40:00. Galen maybe orientation. It isn't a choice. Some of them even say, when they catch themselves, some of them even say, "Think this is something we choose?" But, well - I've heard it said to me on this very program, as an element to prove it's not a choice, it's just the way it is. But you're right about your skin color. There's no choice in that matter. I appreciate your call, Dave. Thank you very much. We're at that moment, here, in the programming format. It's time for an EIB profit center operational pause. We'll take it, be right back. Stay with us. Station Promo: WGST Ad: E-Harmony.com Ad: Healthy Air Consultants Ad: Maximus Sexual Dysfunction Nutritional Supplement Promo: WGST News You all, have you all heard that the White House, uh, quote unquote the White House, I don't know who it is. Somebody in the White House, has said that John Kerry looks French? Oh, he's livid about this, folks. And so is his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. She's absolutely fuming about this, to compare her beloved husband, who sometimes she still refers to as John Heinz. She does. She still talks about John Heinz, her husband. I don't know. This is going to be interesting to watch. But as a side note, the White House said that John Kerry's French. And you also notice - Or looks French. That she said, "Yeah, next thing you know, they're gonna be saying he looks Jewish. And, and, uh, well, he's the one that says he is, and brought it up. Guess we could get Jim Moran weigh in on whether John Kerry is Jewish or not. An interesting observation from Congressman Moran, and then, the Bush team the other day said, "We may spend as much 200 million dollars in 2004, in our re-election effort Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:50:00. Kim ad: LifeQuotes ad: MigraHealth, a dietary supplement for migraines pro war promo by WGST ad: Universal Search and Recovery Center ad: Autozone promo for the morning news show ...take a break- we'll be back, don't go away. [station id] Rush: ....and which we will do, it's all waiting to unfold right before your very eyes and ears. Sit tight and that will all continue in just a brief moment or two. station id ad: Focus Factor station id Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 00:55:00. Kim news break coming up traffic and weather update news break station id ad: Global Payments promo for a special NFL draft show on WGST ad: Woodham's Lens and Implant Center, LLC, laser vision correction Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:00:00. Kim ad: Cure Childhood Cancer, a non-profit organization ad: The Shane Company promo for the morning news show station id [ad: Woodhams Laser Eye Surgery ?} Rush: And here we are, friends- we are back. We are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. It's the Rush Limbaugh program, this is the Excellence in Broadcasting network. So happy to have you along that the telephone number, if you'd like to join us on the program is 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address, rush@eibnet.com. I'm just perusing here- the roster of audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen. A couple of interesting, uh- let's start with number 10 and number 11. This is good, this happened yesterday- *inaudible*- Newt Gingrich reported this to you yesterday. Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House was that the American Enterprise Institute at a forum. They said he gave a speech- he didn't give a speech, what do these people- well, I think he may have given a speech to open this thing, but the comments quoted didn't come from a speech, they came from answer to questions that he was being asked. He ripped into the State Department and claimed that the State Department actually doesn't represent the United States as well as it should. State Department actually is responsible for the diplomatic blunders, not the Bush administration itself. Not the White House, not Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld, or any of these people. At the same time Newt was ripping into the State Department, the State Department had a giant Earth Day celebration going on. Oh yes, my friends- April 22nd is the birthday of Lenin, April 22nd is Earth Day, that is not a coincidence- that the environmentalist wackos would celebrate the Earth Day on the birthday of the leading Communist dictator of the Soviet Union- at least, prior to Stalin. And in honor of Earth Day, the State Department yesterday- Jane Goodall showed up, the primatologist and conversationist. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:05:00. Galen And we have two sound bites of comments that she made, here..... number one, the long version. Actually, they have a short version of this, but this is the full breadth and scope of her comment: "It is to bring us to reality, here. I want to bring the voice of the being I spent 43 years learning about - right here, into this room, on Earth Day, because we tend to spend too much time talking about the environment, talking about conservation. We very really actually get the feeling during these meetings, of the animals themselves. So here's a greeting for you from a chimpanzee: "Woo. Woo, woo, woowoowoowoowoowoowoowoowoo. Woo. Woo. Woo. Woo." [ed: rising tone with increasing speed.] That may be the first time that the voice of the chimpanzee has been heard in the State Department." You believe this? That was Jane Goodall, well-known primatologist. She was a good friend of that ape named Fifi [?sp]. You remember Fifi, that was displaced because of the war in Rwanda? She's at the State Department yesterday, impersonating a chimpanzee. At the State Department. In the midst of this Iraq business, they're celebrating Earth Day, and there's Jane Goodall impersonating a chimpanzee. And then mistakenly saying it's the first time the voice of a chimp has been heard in the State Department. Here's the short version of her comments yesterday: "So here's a greeting for you from a chimpanzee: "Wwoo, woowoowoowoo woowoowoowoowoo. Woo. Woo. Woo. Woo." I don't believe this. I can't - we have an adult, grown woman not appearing on The Tonight Show, not appearing on American Idol, not trying to win a most-talented person contest or anything, but actual, an actual primatologist, going up and speaking perhaps the language State Department striped-pants officials might understand, chimpanzee. On the very day Newt Gingrich was telling the world what he thought of what goes on there, heh, heh, heh, that's just unbelievable. Unbelievable. You remember the name George Galloway? We brought his name to your attention yesterday. George Galloway, a liberal member of Parliament who was - Documents were found in Baghdad indicating the Iraqi government was paying this guy what, 400,000 - 500,000 dollars a year? For various votes in support and this kind - Now he's denying it. He said last night he's ready to take on the Labor Party and fight the next election as an independent. He launched a libel action against claims that he was in the paid service of Saddam Hussein. The maverick Labor MP has said he'll make the new Glasgow Central constituency into a stronghold of real labor values if he's thrown out of the party for his attacks on Tony Blair, the Prime Minister during the Iraq war. Galloway spent yesterday defending what he denounced as preposterous allegations that he met an Iraqi intelligence officer to negotiate an annual payment of 600,000 dollars by trading 6 million barrels of oil under a United Nations scheme. It's just one of the many shady deals under the oil-for-food program in which individuals received mighty rich payments for looking the other way, as that program was violated. He was speaking from his luxury holiday villa in Portugal. Mr. Galloway claimed to have been framed by "black propaganda" and said he intends to clear his name in court. However, House of Commons records say that Mr. Galloway got the money, and in fact, used some of it to pay for 14 of his 15 overseas trips between September 1999 and January 2002. Now, speaking of marriage, would you like to know to whom George Galloway is married? George Galloway is married to the niece of Yassar Arafat. Her name is Abou, wait a minute here, Amina Abou something, I can't read my notes here that I wrote, but it's Amina Abou something-or-other. [note: Amireh Abu-Zayyad] And they share an apartment in Glasgow, which is in Scotland. And that's Arafat's niece. This is - You get to look at some of these relationships, and so forth. And it really opens some eyebrows, doesn't it? Mr. Snerdley, the program affounder [?], who is black, has officially registered his offense at the comment by Mr. Galloway that the stories being spread about him are "black propaganda", that this is somehow racist, and without sensitivity, and because of this, Mr. Galloway should stand down immediately. Because of this insensitive racial remark, calling lies about him black propaganda. I can understand it, too. What is black propaganda? What is it - What does propaganda have to do with skin color? I totally understand your sensitivity to this. In fact, I'll spread it around up there so people find out more about this. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:10:00. Galen Kerry, responding to a taunt by the White House that he looks French, he, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. Responding to a taunt by the White House that he looks French, U.S. Senator John F. Kerry brushed off the political insult, saying; "It's part of an expected barrage of Republican attacks on his character. It means the White House has started the politics of personal destruction," Kerry said in a comment by an unnamed Bush advisor. The New York Times report quoted Republican officials and Bush advisors yesterday, saying that Kerry's presidential campaign wouldn't play well out of New England because his haughty air and Boston upbringing. Because of his haughty air and Boston upbringing. "He looks French," said one Bush advisor, handing the Massachusetts Democrat what is probably the ultimate post-war political put-down. Because France has become a frequent target in the U.S. because of it's staunch opposition to the war against Iraq. Senator Kerry, after an Earth Day campaign stop in Roxbury, said he didn't believe the comment was an attack on his patriotism, adding, "It's funny. I laughed about it." His wife didn't laugh about it, she freaked out. Minutes after Kerry sped off to another campaign speech in New Hampshire, his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, compared the Bush comment to an insult by kids on the playground. "Hell, yeah, they'll probably say he's French, he's a Jew, he's a monkey," Heinz-Kerry said of her husband, whose Jewish roots recently became a campaign issue. "I just find it sad," she added. "These White House officials, they probably don't even speak French." Republican committee spokesman Ron, sorry, Dan Ronan yesterday would not respond to the remarks by Kerry and his wife. Now, the campaign flare-up was triggered by the Times report that said Bush's advisors were prepared to spend up to 200 million on TV advertisements and other campaign expenditures before the Republican convention the first week of September, 2004. That's another thing. The Republicans are gonna move the convention that close to Labor Day, not have it in the middle of July or early August, because nobody will remember it. Report also said that Bush strategerists view Kerry as most likely to win the Democratic nomination, but they plan to attack him as being culturally out of step with the rest of the country. And don't forget, this is the guy who's out there calling for regime change in the White House. Ah, this talk about politics of personal destruction. And then there's this follow-up story, it's in the Boston Globe, today. If Republicans forge ahead with a plans to spend $200 million or more on President Bush's re-election campaign, Senator John F. Kerry- You know, this is really starting to get funny, now. This John F. - he was never called John F. Kerry. And sometime, 3 or 4 months ago, when his presidential bid came up, he did, he started - I want to be called John F and they just lock-step just go right along with him. John F. Kerry. He's never been called John F. He may be John F. Kerry, but he was never called that. He was always referred to as Senator John Kerry or Senator Kerry. Now Senator John F. Kerry. It won't be long before we're gonna see him called Senator JFK. You wait. It's gonna happen. Anyway, Senator John F. Kerry would make it a campaign issue. He would not rule out tapping his own personal wealth to compensate, he said yesterday. He recently reported $8 million dollars cash on hand in his campaign kitty. And he said if the Republicans double the amount they spend on their 2000 campaign it would confirm the party as a hand-maiden to the wealthiest Americans. He said, "I believe the Republican Party is already proven that it's prepared to bargain off, auction off, use the political process to service their special interests. If they want to spend $200 million from their very wealthy and specialized interests, I think that would become a major issue about the kind of government we have in this country, and where we're going. Well, Kerry's personal wealth is limited. His wife has a family fortune that's been assessed as worth $550 million dollars or more. Federal election law makes it unlikely she could transfer the bulk of that money to Kerry. But in the past, both he and his wife have said that they'd consider tapping the reserve if either one was attacked personally in a campaign. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:15:00. Kim What of this business - This is really odd, here, folks. Toward the end of this story, just let me read this. "Until I went to Washington, I have never had asthma in my life. Well, I've got to get the question in front of us, I guess. Kerry's speech is preceded - Let me - Some of this is so odd, he is now claiming about having asthma, Washington gave him asthma. And it's - Let me get this organized, this is so odd. Take a brief time-out, here, I'll come back and try to make sense of this. It sounds like to me, he's just- It's another fishy complaint, seeking sympathy or some such thing. It backpedaling on this. ....so let me, if it's possible- organize this in some way that'll make sense to you. Back here in just a second. promo for the EIB store at rushlimbaugh.com station id ad: spoken ad by Rush for Citracal ad: FreeCreditReport.com ad: Oreck vacuum cleaners ad: Charity Motors ad: Pike Family Nurseries station id Rush: Alright, we're back- Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network. I finally figured out this asthma business of- this, this is the kind of stuff that's gonna get John F. Kerry eventually into deep doo-doo. He made a speech to a bunch of teenagers in Roxbury- remember this is Earth Day and as a liberal, he's gotta relate to everybody. And he- his speech was preceded by a roundtable discussion, which 14 Roxbury residents and area political activists discussed a variety of health problems that they attributed to the concentration of pollution sources in their neighborhood. Claire Allen of Roxbury held up a map, showing that eight of the city's nine...... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:20:00. Galen trash-transfer stations are in the neighborhood, and many of the parents and some of the children in the group complain of asthma. And John F. Kerry saw an opportunity, as is the case - This is just his version of Clinton's "I feel your pain." John F. Kerry said, "You know, until I went to Washington, I'd never had asthma in my life." He said pollution in that city had prompted him to use an inhaler, like those used by some of Roxbury residents. So he had asthma. Well, nobody had ever heard of this before he's running for president. And everybody's concerned about presidential health. So here's this guy just had prostate surgery, just had this and that, all of a sudden he's announced he's got asthma. People hear that, go "What? We didn't know! You have asthma? And it's happened since you got to Washington?" Well, this hubbub had to be de-hubbubed. And so, in an interview afterwards, Senator John F. Kerry clarified his remarks by explaining he used an Albuterol inhaler. For common springtime allergies. But his condition isn't serious enough to limit his physical activity. He said, "I rarely use it. I haven't used it in months." He just, he's just full of it, folks. He just saw an opportunity here, when somebody said, "The children have asthma." Why, it's important that the children know, their parents know that the presidential candidate suffers the same malady and can relate. Knows exactly what they're going through, and thus can do something about it. But the press was listening; "Well, allergies? I didn't know he had allergies. Asthma? That can be pretty serious." "Well, I've got allergies, and I use an inhaler. Not very often, that's all that was. He's gonna do one of these things one of these days, like admit that he had something really, really bad that's gonna be very embarrassing. Mark my words on this. I know these liberals like the back of my hand. They think that they've got to relate every malady, and that's why they all want to portray themselves as poor. All want to portray themselves as men of the street. Men of the people. They all came from unfortunate circumstances but overcame the odds, but they didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They all got to where they are with a government program of some kind. A television news engineer for the Fox News Channel faces smuggling charges after attempting to bring into America 12 stolen Iraqi paintings, monetary bonds, and other items. This according to Federal officials today. The criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, charges that Benjamin James Johnson, 27, tried to bring the paintings into this country last Thursday. They were contained in a large cardboard box that was examined by Customs agents at Dulles International Airport, outside Washington. An affidavit filed with the criminal complaint says that Johnson, who accompanied U.S. troops in Baghdad had gathered up the paintings at a palace that belonged to Uday Hussein. The paintings depict Saddam and Uday. Now, Johnson, who initially told Customs officials he was given the paintings by Iraqi citizens, said that he had planned to keep them for decoration and to provide one to his employer at the Fox News Channel. It is U.S. policy that all such items belong to the Iraqi people. Johnson worked for six years as a satellite truck engineer for the Fox News Channel, which fired him after learning he had admitted to taking the paintings. A Fox statement said this is an unfortunate incident, and his supervisors took the appropriate action for this transgression. And that's it for this half-hour, ladies and gentlemen. Our report will continue after this time-out. Ad: Airborne, dietary supplement Promo and station identification: WGST News Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:25:00. Immaadd2 NewsRadio-WGST-640 NewsRadio-News-WGST-640 Ad: Baranco Lincoln Mercury Ad: Mid Atlantic Financial Services Ad: D. Geller and Sons Jewelers Ad: Cool 105.7 Ad: Nokia Promo: First News Tom Hughes Rush Intro Music Rush: Yes, yes, yes, yes, well aware of it. Okay, folks, back to the phones... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:30:00. Galen To Yuma, Arizona. This is Melinda. Hi, Melinda. Welcome to the EIB Network. [Melinda] Rush, dittos from the desert southwest. I hate to regress back to Santorum, but I wanted to respond to the earlier caller who said that there was absolutely no connection between what Senator Santorum said and what Trent Lott said. And I have to disagree. I know you did agree with him and he seemed happy that you affirmed your position on that. But there is actually one major difference between those two comments. The difference is that Trent Lott's comments were against a population that it's no longer acceptable to prejudice against. You know, it's not acceptable to be prejudiced against anybody based on their race. But it's still, in our society, we still have two acceptable prejudices left. And that's why I think Senator Santorum's comments are so related to Trent Lott's. The only reason that this, his comments are an issue at all, is because the law, the sodomy law that he was commenting on is primarily practiced by a specific population that it's still acceptable to express a prejudice against. And I think that's the only reason why this privacy issue is coming up, and people are saying, "Hey, it's OK if we're not gonna try to regulate what you and your wife do. But these other two contributing, productive Americans who get up every day, and go to work and they teach our children, run our businesses, and they run our governments, and they fight in our military. We can tell them what they can and can't do. And so, I just wanted to see if you could see the correlation and make a comment. [Rush] Actually, it sounds to me that you're making a case that there isn't a similarity between what Lott said, Santorum said, if I may go back to that, first. Because, just using your argument, not necessarily that I agree with it. Your argument is that there is an accepted, still a couple of accepted groups about who prejudice is allowed, but that there isn't a accepted prejudice permitted against black Americans any more, which is what Senator Lott's comments were about. So I don't see the similiar- Even if somebody wants to argue there's a similarity. What, if there's a desire, it would seem to me, to equate, or, in other way, try to make similar the comments that Santorum and Lott made. There's only one reason for it, and that is to get rid of Santorum. Because that was the ultimate effect that Lott, Lott's comments had on him. He's gone from the leadership position in the Senate. He's still in the Senate, but he's no longer majority leader there, and his dismissal was effectuated in this regard. It seems to me, that anybody who wants to equate what Santorum said to Lott did, has the same objective for Santorum in mind. [Melinda] Yeah, and the problem is that, yeah, I'm a lesbian Republican and I'm a big fan of yours. I have a very difficult time sometimes defending that, which I always do, of course. But our community, the gay community has a tenden- [Rush] Well, I'm surprised at that. We are huge in the lesbian community out there , huge out there. [Melinda] I have to disagree with that, but I think the problem with the gay community is they like to eat, sleep their sexuality. At least the people that are out there and vocal. I mean there's a huge gay population that just wants to get up every day and they want to be able to do what they, you know, work, and earn a living, and pay their bills and contribute to their community. And we talk about Republican points they've got to love about us is that we like smaller government, give more power to the people, and you're obviously, you know, very good supporter of all that, and all the other issues. But in this particular issue, you say it''s OK, because it's just for a particular population that we don't like anyway. [Rush] Wait, wait wait wait wait. What did I say that you think is OK? Are you thinking I'm, are you assuming or inferring I have supported whatever it was Santorum said? [Melinda] Oh, no. [Rush] By quibbling with the quote that was mis-attributed to him? 'Cuz I'll tell you something. You said something here that's extremely on the money. And it's just like the white population is not monolithic, and the black population is not monolithic, even though it's close, because of the way it votes. The gay population is neither. When talking to the gay community, I always stipulate the militant, extremist protestor element of the gay population, and there is a group, and you've just said it yourself, that they orient their whole lives around their sexuality, and they seem to be demanding everybody accept it, where there are others, who you wouldn't even know, that they are gay, or lesbian, as you are, unless you tell us. Wouldn't even know. Because you're not demanding, not throwing in everybody's face, demanding that we accept it, or that everybody accept it. And, it's not - [Melinda] It's still a population that a lot of people in our society are at least, the government, and a lot of people on the Republican side Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:35:00. Immaadd2 Melinda: dictates how they should live their lives. We don't want them doing this (unintelligible) because our children might have to see you, because my contention with that is, "It's your job to raise your child," and you need to instill your values in your child, and if your neighbors are a gay couple, male or female, and maybe they have a child, or, they are still contributing and they are not forcing their... Rush: Well, now that circumstance may -- no, no wait a minute... Melinda: Now you're trying to dictate just what they can do in their bedroom. Rush: Well, in that circumstance, look, probably people in this country who have neighbors who are gay or lesbian and don't know it, and therefore what's going on in the privacy in the home is not a factor (Rush talking over caller) but that one thing - but now I'm just picking a point with you here, (unintelligible) has nothing to do with Santorum or what he said ... Melinda: Okay. Rush: ..or what you said... Melinda: Okay Rush: ...about Santorum, but there are people who are naturally going to revolt in opposition, if organizations they believe in based on certain values, are then tempted to be, Ohh, overthrown, (unintelligible) whatever by people, doesn't matter whether they're gay or not, who have alternative views, when it comes to values and this kind of thing. I think pe -- can understand people wanting to maintain the sanctity of organizations that are based on certain structures, structures of morality... Melinda: Well sure. Rush: ... like -- long as they see it. And that's not what this Santorum thinks about. Melinda: Well, I, now I disagree. Rush: We got to -- we got to be careful taking this off in to many areas, and we can discuss all this I'm more than happy to but the Santorum thing is specifically about a legal case being fought in Texas and I'll tell you what it boils down to, is this. If you really want to get in to the nuts and bolts of the this, what this -- what this case is about is, we have fifty states in this country, this one state have the right, because the people live in that state have, you know, democratically elected representatives and the governor of that state. Does one state have the right to determine such as sodomy laws? Melinda: Okay. Rush: Does this state have the right to say "In our state, consensual sex, other than this kind, is against the law in our state," that really what this is about? Melinda: Well, sure it is... Rush: And does the federal government have the right to over rule what a state comes up with in terms of it's own prefaces and law... Melinda: Actually, and I -- and I agree with that whole-heartedly. I think that the difficulty with the Senator -- Senator Santorums comments is that this particular law, our society has evolved, I mean, we're -- you're talking about from the "50's" when, people couldn't believe black children would go to school with white children, to now, where we couldn't even imagine "not' having such an integrated society. I mean when you're talking about people, supporting a very specific law, they're supporting it because it's basically applies to a very particular population that they dislike and they think it's still okay to be prejudice against now and the sodomy law, I mean if a married couple, you say, "Okay you're not going to regulate what a married couple does." Well, do you think a married couple is any less able to practice some of these, uhh... Rush: Well, no, that's... Melinda: ...they're not going to be arrested. Rush: (Talking over Melinda) Oh, they most certainly would... Melinda: target them... Rush: They most certainly would if they -- well, this is -- this is -- look it, this is the question. Let's use your married couple, your heterosexual married couple example. Under the so-called right to privacy, do they have a right to practice incest with their children in their home? Melinda: Of course not, because... Rush: Why not? Melinda: Because in incest that is more than likely, it's going to be a minor child, okay and... Rush: Well no; let's assume it's not. Let's say it's a ... Melinda: ...a twenty-one year old... Rush: ...18 or 19 year old child, what, why not? If it's consensual, and it's within the home, why not? Same thing with a married couple want to do a three way, they bring somebody else in that's also married and they agree to it and they bring another couple and maybe the practice a little be -- maybe somebody wants to have two wives or a mistress and bring all them into the house and have a grand ole time. Should they be able to do it under the rights of... Melinda: The difficulty with those situations is those situations are never going to be identified unless there's like a complainant. Unless somebody comes, this is happening or I suspect this and that is happening... Rush: No but I guarantee you... Melinda: ...investigated, but with a gay couple, well I mean you can have two men that live together and everybody knows that they are gay... Rush: ...but wait... Melinda: ...afraid of which hunts and they are saying (Rush saying -- but) they're going to be going in... Rush: ...but Senator Santorum, I've read his comments. The Senator Santorum doesn't say a word about supporting federal or state officials marching in neighborhoods and knocking on doors. Melinda: Well of Course not and if I... Rush: Well then, but to the same time Senator Santorum would not favor bigamy, incest or any of these other things that are oriented around heterosexual prowesses... Melinda: But the problem is... Rush: ... in the home under the... Melinda: you're lumping a very respectable group of Americans in with... Rush: I'm not doing, no, no.. Melinda: and it's based on morality -- it's based on morality. Incest is immoral, polygamy is immoral, adultery is immoral and they're lumping homosexuality as an immoral act with those and that's ... Rush: Well, I -- see -- that's, there we're back full circle, because that's specifically what I think Santorum did not do. That- (sigh) the word gay, it... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:40:00. Kim ...is *inaudible* by the reporter, and he didn't say it. And that's why angry civil rights, human rights, gay rights activists are upset here- because they think that his question- comment, equates homosexuality with all these other deviant forms of sex. And my point to you is that Senator Santorum didn't say gay- uh, he doesn't, he wouldn't- as I just said, he would not support heterosexual sexual behavior that is considered, under social laws, deviant- wrong, incorrect or whatever. This is just- ya know, there's a lot of people waiting to be offended- and they're not even really offended. You know, this is- this is what really gets to the bottom of- they're really not offended. It's just like Martha Burke's not offended that women aren't admitted as members to Augusta- and Jesse Jackson really isn't offended when somebody makes a racial com- it's exciting. He's excited, it's an opportunity to keep the cause going. It's an opportunity to raise hell. It's an opportunity to make- to get a kill, to get somebody wiped out of office or whatever. But we- you talk about society and how we've advanced. We've- I don't believe that 90% of the people claim they're offended are really offended. We're more adult than that. Uh, to be offended- you've- it takes a lot anymore, and most people have heard everything, seen everything, been exposed to it. The idea that, uh- people are genuinely offended, I think is way way overdone. We have a cottage industry- the offended, the waiting to be offended- because there is a political war being fought on the basis of whatever it is that offends certain people. And it just- and these things are all opportunities and that's what's taking place now. Let's face it, Senator Santorum's been a target of people for a long time- long before this comment. He's going to continue to be a target and anything he says that gives them the slightest ability to mount another assault- they're gonna take it and that's in essence what's happening here. Look Belinda, I appreciate the call. We've got to run a little long in this exciting broadcast segment- we will be right back. promo for Rush's show station id ad: Z-Max fuel additive ad: Ben-Gay promo for the morning news show ad: Lennox Financial Mortgage ad: Dish Network Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:50:00. Kim ad: Blanchard & Company promo for a contest on WGST ad: ALT Communications ad: Ace Hardware promo for the Kimmer, after Rush Rush: Apparently a couple reporters found their way into Baghdad Bob's office and found some notes to him from Saddam Hussein- dated March 20th. The notes from Saddam said they hit our houses, but I'm fine and here's a couple pointers for you, Baghdad Bob, as to what you should keep saying. The point is that Saddam obstensibly alive and kicking- at least as of March 20th, which was after the initial attack on the, uh- bunker, after the first big hit that started the war. Also, um- their lesbian friend had called and said that it's still okay to have prejudice against homose- tell Santorum that. If it's still okay, then what's Santorum in problem, uh- got a problem with? If it's okay to be prejudiced against gays- I would refute that. Anyway, we've got an hour of broadcast excellence remaining, my friends, and we'll be right back and get to it. station id ad: Alavert ad: Autozone station id news break coming up Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 01:55:00. Immaadd2 NewsRadio-WGST-640 - News Local News National News NewsRadio-WGST640 Ad: Woodhams Laser and Lens Implant Center Promo: NFL Prep Show Ad: Global Payment Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:00:00. Immaadd2 Ad: Global Payments Ad: Quick Trip Ad: Marvin Windows and Doors NewsRadio-WGST640 Rush Intro Music Rush: The music expressed by the host of this program makes more sense than any thing anybody else out there happens to be saying, because the music expressed by the host on this program, are the result of a, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth. You need courage; to face the truth on this program otherwise, probably go barkers. Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the, program today, 800-282-2882. The email address is rush@eibnet.com From yesterday's stack of stuff, University of California Berkley professors are contemplating a new question this spring, " Does dating your student flunk the ethics test?" " Faculty are scheduled to vote on new rules this spring, completing a process that began well before the Dean of Berkley's top law schrool left, amid a sex scandal last fall. The policy, would make the University of California the latest school to ban the classroom courtships, joining such schools as the University of Michigan, University of Iowa, and Yale. It seems that more and more institutions are developing such policies, in the hopes of avoiding, having to deal with the issue, when there is no policy in place." Says Donna Euben, of the American Association of University Professors. "Although the University of California does not have, "A no dating decree", faculty recommended drafting a policy in 1983, but it was not made formal. There has always been an unwritten rule that getting involved with students is a bad idea," said Gayle Binion, Chair of the University of California's Academic Senate, and a political Science professor at UC Santa Barbara. "Still" Binion says, "It's a good idea to get it in writing. It's an ethics thing" she says, "Faculty have been working on a dating policy since late 2001." Sounds to me like they've been working on it since 1983 and their dragging their feet, here, in getting this done. Now, this leads to a larger question ladies and gentlemen. What happens if there is consent, between the faculty member and the student? Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:05:00. Immaadd2 Rush: ...and it plays with in the privacy of one or the others doma file. Be it a dormitory room, be it a home, be it an apartment, be it an automobile. Well, where ever, what if there is consent? Is it okay? I, gonna be very hard to come up with restrictions on this according to, current popular line of thought. Uhh, gonna be Gestapo like, to say that faculty members can't date students. Who are we to say? What business is it of ours? Especially if they both consent. Free to -- right to privacy and all that, there is something to ponder here. Especially you parents sending your young nubile daughters off to these sch - and your nubile sons, off to these institutions of higher learning, and besides that if you get a good grade out of it, I mean it could be an even added bonus, in addition to the momentary orgasmic pleasure that you get, from the consensual relationship that tales place under the right of privacy, that's nobody's damn business. What do you think of that Senator Santorum? And now back to the news ladies and gentlemen, "Six Iraqi scientists, working at different Baghdad research institutions, were ordered to destroy some bacteria and equipment and hide more in their homes, before visits from UN weapon inspectors in the months leading up to the war. This is all from the scientists, who told this to Associated Press, in separate interviews. All of the scientist said that they were involved in civilian research projects and none, knew of any programs for weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't clear, why their materials were ordered destroyed. They were for non-military research and they weren't, mass destruction type weapons, why were they ordered destroyed. But their accounts indicate, that the government of Saddam Hussein may have had advance knowledge, that at least some of the inspectors visit as the US suspected, and that the former Iraqi regime was deeply concerned about any material that could raise the suspicion of UN experts. An hour or two before the inspectors came to the University, I got my orders from the chairman," said a biochemistry professor at Saddam University for science and -- that just makes me laugh. Saddam Uni...(banging sounds & laughing) Saddam University (laughing) which is right off of Saddam Plaza, and right across the street from the Saddam Nuclear Facility, which is right down the street from the Saddam International Airport (laughing) Ahh, my friends, why were they hiding anything from Blix? Blix couldn't find it if he walked into it. If Blix found it, he wouldn't say he found it. Hiding it from Blix. But, let me tell you what this indicates. Aside from all the jokes, what this means if the AP's got this right, what it means is, that Saddam or his agents knew in advance where the UN was going, and knew in advance, who from the UN was gonna go where and what they were looking for. That's what it means. Here's another thing, you know all this cash that their finding over there, found another stash of stuff, they're checking to see, if all this cash is legit, and not counterfeit. How'd this cash get there with this boycott? With all these sanctions, and so how'd this cash get in there? And what are American dollars being used over there for? How'd those American dollars get in there? Uhh, a lot of questions here, remaining to be answered. And now on to little Dick Gephardt, ladies and gentlemen, who appeared today with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, explained to Matt Lauer his plan for providing National Health Care. I say, this is a definite tried and true issue, is it not. This is something that's never been brought up to the American people, so that we've never weighed in on. Little Dick, actually he's following in the footsteps here of Mondale in effect, because, his idea here is national healthcare for everybody, and the way to pay for it is to cancel everybody's tax cut. Isn't that what Mondale said that he would do in "84" in essence. He promised a tax increase, pretty much the same thing. Matt Lauer's question, "Let's break it down, your health insurance plan. Right now business's are given a tax deduction for providing health insurance to their employee's. I think they get to recoup about 34% of their expenses, you're gonna boost that to 60%. How are you gonna pay for that?" (Dick Gephardt recorded from interview saying) "By getting rid of the Bush tax cut. Bush passed a tax cut, President Bush passed a tax cut last year of about 1.4 trillion dollars over ten years. He's trying to add to that another half trillion dollars over ten years. Whatever's on the books, my first week as President, I'll go to the congress and ask them to repeal all of those tax cuts." Matt Lauer cuts in with, " Except the marriage, reducing the marriage penalty. Dick Gephardt: I'll try to keep the marriage penalty and maybe one other thing, but I'm going to put the vast bulk of that money into this program to get everybody covered. My plan will help the economy more than his... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:10:00. Immaadd2 Dick Gephardt: ...it'll put money in peoples pockets, because some of this money will wind up back in the employee's pockets because we're helping the corporations and small business, so much with their costs for health care. Secondly, businesses will be able to invest in new employees, invest in capital equipment; it'll spark the economy. The Bush tax cuts have mainly gone to the people at the top. This will go more evenly to everybody in the country...(Rush interrupts) Rush: I don't know where to go with this. This is so wrong, it's pathetic. Aside from the philosophical thing here that's really frightening, that all money for health care is gonna come from you, and if the government is gonna offer incentives to corporations, that the funding for their health care programs is going to come from the government if corporations do certain things to qualify. You gonna make it mandatory for every business, how in the world this puts money in peoples pockets is beyond me. How in the world this spurs the economy is beyond me. All this does is grow the size of government, and growing the size of government creates deficits. Expanding government does not expand the economy. They are not one and the same. He doesn't say -- but, why is the marriage tax penalty, unfair, Dick? I mean, why are you going to spare that? You know, once you get him on the subject of explaining - "Well, I wouldn't get rid of all tax cuts. Some of them I would keep, like the marriage tax (unintelligible)." Why? What are you gonna keep that one? Why you gonna allow that to go forth? Well, then he's trapped, because no matter how he explains it. Well if it's good for them, why is it not good for everybody? This tax cut (unintelligible) for these people, but why not an overall tax cut? I mean this -- this, this is -- is -- ahh; you don't wanna call it socialism. This is -- is, it just, there's nothing in it that's right. I mean, it's gonna help small business's with their costs for health care? It's doing nothing of the sort. It's telling all business's what they've gotta do, in order to get this money. It's just -- it's empowering the government pure and simple. Makes business depend on government. It makes more people depend on government. It creates dependants. It does the exact thing necessary to establish and grow a free market. Here's another story, by the way. Little Dick is famous for these stories, and we've got another one here ladies and gentlemen. This one, is a tearjerker, Matt Lauer follows up this last comment. "Well, don't you see though, this is going to be a target for people from both sides, this plan? The left are going to say that you're giving money business's and on the right they're gonna say, give this money to the individual and let them buy their own health insurance. How are you gonna fight that?" The recorded voice of Dick Gephardt: "I had a woman in Iowa last week who said to me, she had three kids, single mother, one of the kids a diabetic, she lost her job, no healthcare. She had to pay the bill with her MasterCard. She got a new job with healthcare; they fired her the next day because she had a bad credit rating. People are struggling with problem all over this country."(The recording stops) Rush: Doesn't answer the question that he was asked. Where, yet he runs into all these -- you notice everybody he runs into is diabetic? All those Enron people, uhh, diabetic problem down there, when he talked to those people. All these little sob s -- People got fired because of a bad credit rating, a day after she was hired. Just amazing. You know, look at -- look at the way these people look at America. They look out there and they see devastation. They see gloom and doom, unhappiness, despair. All of these, this is their vision of America, this is what he wants to see lady -- he wants to see an America that's in this in this kind of shape. That's the only way he thinks his program, his candidacy will ever be viable. A happy and productive and growing America will not have room for a President Gephardt, and any of his policies. We'll take a break. We'll be right back Stay with us. Promo: RushLimbaugh.com Promo: The Kimmer Ad: General Steel Corp. Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:15:00. Immaadd2 Ad: General Steel Ad: AC Delco Ad: Desenex Promo: Tom Hughes for Rush Ad: Pike Family Nurseries Ad: Reliable Heating and Air NewsRadio-WGST640 Rush: Scanning the web ladies and gentlemen, during the most recent EIB Profit center time out, and one of the places that, becoming more and more popular out there, the ABC web news, or ABC News web site, is the "note" section. You've seen that -- you haven't se -- oh you ought ta -- the program observer has not -- see, they suspended the note during the -- during the war. They didn't do that feature. It's basically a comment on domestic politics everyday, and it just, it got started accidentally, just -- one of those things that evolved, the people that run the website, on a daily basis, with just jotting their thoughts down in a commentary type basis, and it evolved into something now that has a title, and it's own section on the site called the "Note". Listen to this, form the Note today; "Could any one deny that most Washington reporters," and it's amazing that this comes from ABC, by the way, keep that in mind, my dear friends as you, listen to this, "Could any one deny that most Washington reporters tend to move more aggressively to bring down republican in trouble, than democrats in trouble. And could anyone deny that democratic operatives work harder, to build the kind of relationships with journalists that pay off at times like these. And could anyone deny the causal connection, between the phenomenon describes in the two previous paragraphs, in any event. It's pretty clear that the democratic party which is still trying to figure out what it does well, with it's current array of personnel, is exercising the same muscles that allowed it to score point after point in driving Trent Lott from the leadership. The current democratic gambit seems to be, to try to get prominent republicans to say what they think of Santorum's remarks, and in some cases to call for the senator to be removed, from the leadership." Exactly right... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:20:00. Immaadd2 Rush: ...BC pointing this out. The "Note" section of abc.com, abcnews.com, its ABCNewsgo.com actually, but never the less, it's right on the money, but, the Democratic Party, is still without anything to offer anybody. The Democratic Party's only hope is to tear down, it's opposition. Democratic Party does not have a prayer, unless everybody turns on their opponents. Democratic Party doesn't have a prayer unless things go to hell in this country and they are turned to, simply there is no where else to go. They do not have one person, they have not one idea, that will make people turn to them for positive reasons. Here is uhh, Steve, Indianapolis. Welcome sir, nice to have you on the program. Steve: Thank you, Rush. Neo-con dittos from the mid-west. Rush: Thank you, sir. Steve: I want to comment real quickly on the Cal - uhh, Cal State Berkley, I think it was. The uhh, Rush: Yeah. Steve: The uhh, desire for the faculty there, to get something on the books about students and professor relationships. And you made the mention about consent, well, there can't be a consensual relationship unless there's two peers. Rush: Uhh, there can't be a consensual relationship unless there are two -- "peer's?" Steve: That's what -- that's what I'm saying. I'm saying in a relationship where there is power, where, uhh, where they're professor, male or female (Rush -- Ohhh!) has a... (Rush -- Ohhhh!) over -- over...(Rush Interrupts) Rush: Ohhh! I see what you're sa -- you're saying the students has no choice but to consent because the implied threat is, if you refuse you me you might get a lousy grade or some such thing. Steve: I'm not saying that that's got to be the standard of the relationship. I'm gonna say, I am saying that though that that's the appearance, and that's ab -- (unintelligible) the -- it's a reality in some situations and what else I'm saying is that subliminally at least that is always there. It is not a situation where there, just two people who would have met under normal circumstances decide "Hey, I like you, you like me, let's start going out." Okay it's a situation where one has a position of elevation over another like David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba could of said no... Rush: Yeah, but look at - you're ignoring some practical reality that exists in society out there. I reject the notion that you can't have consent unless you have peers. You most certainly can have consent. Are you telling me that every male-female relationship has divided equal power? Are you telling me you're not living in the world I'm living in? I'm just -- there is -- I don't know where -- there is not -- I -- you can take any relationship you want, and there is always one that has more on the other or the other way around. It's - there this desire that there is this co-equal distributions of desire, passion, all these, just silly. There are a few, and sometimes differences are miniscule, but uhm, I mean the idea that -- see the problem here is human nature, and I don't care, what anybody wants to say in the vast majority, certainly not all, but in the vast majority of male-female relationships. Haaah, you know I know I'm gonna catch it for this, cause this happens when you're right, you know, when you're people just don't want to hear this stuff when you're right. But, in a traditional relationship the woman has the power, the woman is the one who says "no". The woman is the one who says "no"; the woman is the one who says "yes". You know what I'm talking about. Don't start getting picky with me, folks just admit it. Promo: The Kimmer Ad: Solomon Brothers Diamonds NewsRadio-WGST640 Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:25:00. Immaadd2 NewsRadio-WGST640 Local News NewsRadio-WGST640 Ad: Baranco Lincoln Mercury Promo: The Kimmer Ad: Auto Zone Ad: Gutter Helmet Ad: Dish Network Promo: J. J. Jackson -- Whole Foods Ad: Nokia Promo: Tom Hughes Rush Intro Music Rush: The man, the legend, a way of life, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network. Look, when you get right down to it, Santorum didn't say anything that was wrong. He's commenting on a legal case. All you have here, is the latest democrat party cottage indus... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:30:00. Immaadd2 Rush: is a planed procedure, it has it's own pages in their handbook on how to bring down leaders in the republican senate and the house, and through out the party, cause that's all they've got. That's all the democrats have. They don't have anything that is inspirational. They don't have anything, that is charismatic or anybody that is charismatic. They do not have a message that is uplifting for the people of this country. They have positioned themselves to benefit only when hell breaks loose in this country either economically or in the area of foreign policy. So now they think Santorum's stepped in it and so the page of the playbook is activated and they go into pre-programmed action. And I think this note from abc.com indicates that the games up, and they're calling them on it. It's not fun to play anymore. It just, nothing to it. As long as Santorum, stands firm, and as long as the republicans in the senate stand firm, as it appears they are now, but hell who knows, but as long as they do, this thing will peter out. Ehh, Todd in Williamsport Pennsylvania. Hi welcome to the EIB Network. Todd: Hello Rush Rush: Yes. Todd: I'm not in Williamsport, I'm in Unity Ville, but I was there at a press conference this morning and I wanted to talk to you a bit. Rush: Yes. Todd: I had a chance to speak to the senator at the town meeting and I want to share a little bit of what I shared and I want to end with a comment, by the way, it's a pleasure talking with you. Rush: Thanks. Todd: I indicated that, I have no agenda and I don't belong to any pressure groups, I just a voice from the country that I hope is speaking for me and I wanted to be sure that the senator understood, that anybody who speaks from the core of their convictions, speaks from their heart, should not be neutralized and I coined a word a couple of years ago, watching the press, watching the "left" of the press. That they have this attempt to neutralize the positions of power, the authority of anybody, who speaks from their core values and once that neutralization is launched, it's like I indicted to one of the reporters there, it's like a deer, that was killed along the highway, within hours the vultures are there, trying to dispose of it. Now, some of the groups that came out and I indicated this to the senator uhh, that... Rush: Well, wait -- what you were talking to the senator? Todd: At this town meeting, yeah. Rush: What did he say to you? Todd: Well, he just stared and was nodding his head in agreement, but I got to finish. I said that many of these groups are organized only to justify their own agenda and to get in a comfort zone, among people who think like them so they don't have the courage to speak individually and that's the fundamental issue here. You see, the issue to me, is not the issue of what the senator may have said, out of context, what the press did, although that is an issue, is the issue that we live in America, and this is the United States Senator and he speaking from his core, from his convictions and we ought to praise that, and if were true Americans, we ought --we ought to welcome the debate and I (unintelligible) on this, and...(Rush interrupts) Rush: Wait, hold it a minute, all this -- I hate -- I don't mean to be rude here but we've -- all of this has been mentioned on the program today. You've - you may not have heard it. This isn't really you fault, but elements of what you're saying have already been discussed. Especially the point about the democrats laying in wait for things like this to happen, but I just, I mean literally seconds before taking you're phone call, mentioned the fact, of bouncing off the note that's on abcnews.com's website right now. That the democrats just have this out of page of their play book, are just waiting to implement it. Uhm, give me - go the guy you had up there that I thought I was going to take. Give me the guy Watertown South Dakota if he's still there. Joe? Welcome to the program, Joe, nice to have you with us. Joe: Yeah, my pleasure. Say Rush, I just had to comment, I'm a flying Captain for a major carrier. We had nothing but letters talking about the danger we were in if we played around with flight attendants, for good reason. We had (unintelligible) over them, we were the captain's and these were kids, twenty-two years old. So obviously, this is around, this is why I was so incensed with Bill Clinton and uhh, Monica. You know nobody ever mentioned that, as an airline pilot, you could loose your job over something like that, but the president... Rush: Well wait a minute. Now wait just a second -- wait just a second I-- I can't name any names, I don't recall it, but I know so many flight attendants and pilots that were having a get go here, that, I mean if there's consent, I know you're commenting on the peer pressure here, these are kids, you're pilot, you're the captain, if your advances are refused, she may fear she could get in trouble, or he may fear he could get in trouble, which ever the case is, but never the less, I mean these things go on. Joe: Let me give you a scenario that I seen. You're a co-pilot, you're in love, she's in love what ever happen... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:35:00. Immaadd2 Joe: the next morning you call them out, you don't want to leave you're wife and she said she was pressed, bad problems, Rush, in... Rush: Well, no, wait a minute, hold it, don't misunderst - I - I'm not advocating any of this, but I mean, please (Rush laughing) he - I'm just saying I know it's happened. I mean, here we're having all these -- don't misunderstand me Joe, I appreciate the phone call, but all these professors, "Ahh, you can't do that. I mean, peer pressure, you get thrown out of college." It happens. You know the number of professors thrown out of college, compared to the number of professors getting away with it, is infinitesimal. Same thing here, it always because this stuff happens, and weather there's -- and there has to be consent. The uhh, there's a number of times that these kind of things are "power" positions, "power" plays that are in force, I'm sure those they exist too, but, they're probably no where near the majority. Most of the time it is consensual, but it, it always leads to problems, don't mis -- there's no advocacy here. (Rush laughing) Don't misunderstand. I'm just raising a question here based on the thing that got all the balls rolling today here, what about the right to privacy when there's consent, uhh, where do we draw the line. People get mad at Senator Santorum because of where he draws it. Where do you draw it? And then let somebody come down on you for it. I'm sure everybody draw the line just outside where they behave. Where they behave is fine, but they draw the line just outside where they behave and start condemning people on the other side of that line, "Cause I'm not doing anything really wrong, I mean, I'm an honorable person and everything going on with me is up front and (unintelligible) everybody knows (unintelligible) fine and dandy, but (unintelligible) people over there, they are -- they are ruining morality and fiber -- fabric of this country, blah, blah, blah." Everybody does it that way, or nine times out of ten. I don't, but I'm sure most of -- most people that get involved with these things come up with any number of ways to justify it. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Sioux City Iowa, Mike, welcome to the program, it's your turn, welcome. Mike: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call (Rush talking over Mike -- You bet) uhm, you know I agree with you to a point. I mean they're both consenting adults, students and the professors, but I guess, I look at it that there are normal relationships or whatever a normal relationship is, I mean either party can terminate the relationship and walk away and all they really lost is their time they put into the relationship. I mean if your looking at a student who decides, you know, this relationship isn't going anywhere, I'm going to leave it, you know they're going to risk the professor being able to (recant?) you know and gosh there's some problems at school and if you take it a step farther, I mean it's awful. It's going to affect the professor from his effectiveness of teaching. If he decides, you know, "This is wrong, I'm going to terminate it," and the student says, you know, " I'm really pissed off now," I mean they can really cause some problems for that professor and then, you know, effectiveness of doing his job. Rush: So what's the point? Mike: Well the point is, I mean, it's not so much one has more power than the other it's just in a teaching and student relationship, if they allow it, there's chance of being you know, a greater problem down the road with just not the relationship itself... Rush: Okay. Okay. Alright, I, so... Mike: ...so if you didn't allow it, they're - you know, you're not gonna run that risk. Rush: If you -- if you don't -- if you just disallow the practice? Mike: Yeah Rush: Yeah. I mean if you don't participate in it. Say if (Mike saying -- Well, yeah) you're a professor. Mike: I guess that's why I say I believe that the college have to say, you know, regardless if they're both consenting adults, they can't allow a relationship between a professor and (Rush interrupts) Rush: Well, okay again I'm going to say why? I'm gonna say, I mean if it's consensual, who's got the right they can't? Especially if they do it in private. Who's got the right to say they can't? Remember we have the right to privacy in this country and the right to privacy supersedes everything. And who care if trouble arises later. The fact is, both were consenting and there was this right to privacy and whose business is it. Ours to condemn or this, isn't this what some people are claiming is the case? Isn't this how some people lean on the right to privacy as a means of justifying what they do? "Well, if you don't see me doing it. It's none of your business if you don't care. If the people doing it with me consent, what ever it is then so what, it's none of your business, leave me alone." Now this - I'm telling you this opens all kinds of cans of worms, when you get into the subject what kind of society do want -- do we want to have? Where we going to draw the moral lines? "Well, you have no right to define my morality. You have no right to impose your morality on me." Well, you know morality; in truth is not an imposition. There are things that are moral and things that are aren't, and most people know them, it's just that some engaging in the immoral things don't want to admit it, cause they don't want to think they're bad people. So they come up with justifications and lo and be... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:40:00. Immaadd2 Rush: here come the right to privacy, which is the license, and is the granter of permission, so to speak. There's always hell to pay when you get involved in these things anyway, it always comes out, one way or the other, or even if it doesn't, you still end up 9, well, I don't want to say 9 (unintelligible) cause 10, but a lot of times, these things that you engage in that you don't think are quite right, one way or the other. You know. The bottom line. Quick break, we'll be back. More on the other side stay with us. Promo: Rush Limbaugh Ad: XM Satellite Radio Ad: Afrin Nasal Spray Ad: D. Geller and Sons Jewelers Ad: The Atlanta Institute of Medicine and Research NewsRadio-WGST640 Rush Intro Music Rush: Gheez, Oh wow! I mean, you would not believe, one little -- one little throw away story, about what's going on at the University of California Berkley, involving the faculty dating students and we are -- the phone lines are melting here, with professors that want to spill their guts on what they've done, others who want to just, I mean it's incredible. I fell like I've turned into Playboy Advisor. And I 'm qualified, don't misunderstand but I'm sitting here, not that I'm not, up on this, or up to this, but, it's just a throw away story and I can't - I can't seem to escape this. Normally is talking about earth shattering events like the war on Iraq, and what's going to be the aftermath there. Gephardt's health care plan, uhh there's a whole lot of sex going on, out there, Look, I shoulda known it. Sales of Viagra, when that came out. The thing that puzzles me with all this folks, and the program observer just made this point, all during the later part of the 90's we were -- we were all told in this country that you can have sex with an intern. The Democratic Party told us, that as long as it doesn't effect the ... Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:45:00. Immaadd2 Rush: ...do your job, that none of this is anybodies business. So, in that light, I don't understand why they're harping all over Senator Santorum. And I don't understand, why all the sudden the liberals now are concerned about faculty, uhh, students dating, or affairs at UC, UC Berkley? Anyway here's Jim in Alexandria Virginia. Welcome sir, it's good to have you with us. Jim: Hey, thanks Rush. You know (Rush: Yeah) what's the most interesting part of this, as a post modern deconstructionanalist who does not even admit the existence of right and wrong, how exactly do you -- do you set up baselines, when you've denied it for your entire career as a tenured professor. How so you establish now, that there's a right and wrong? No wonder they've been working on this since 1983. Rush Oh, Wow! This is - now, this is really interesting. You're talking about these liberal professors at UC Berkley all over the place, who as part of liberalism have to say there aren't any rules, there aren't any lines that demark right and wrong and all this sort, and now they're trying to set them up for themselves and how in the world are they gonna do it because their lives have been made up doing just the opposite. Jim: Exactly, it contradicts exactly what they've spent, you know, the last twenty years preaching to their students. I think deep down inside everyone knows that it is wrong for professors to date students, but if you can't admit the existence of right and wrong then how do you set up the ground rules. Rush: Exactly. If there is no right or wrong because nobodies got the right to define right or wrong for somebody else, then how in the world can they come out (laughing) after a lifetime of trying to make that case? That's an excellent point, and no wonder, they been struggling since 1983 here, according to this story. They been -- they been at this for twenty years and as you say, everybody knows, it shouldn't be done. For twenty years they've been struggling with how to write the rules. (Both Jim and Rush Laughing) Thanks for the call, appreciate it. Uhh, Marylyn somewhere in Florida, who is a college professor. Welcome to the program. Marylyn: Hey there, Rush. Rush: Hi. Marylyn: I just wanted to let you know that I'm a professor and there are college professors out there that are sexual predators. It's not just at one school but it's not quite as uncommon as you would think. And this is not consensual sex like that other caller said. I think that really asinine. Any more than you can say that child pornography or incest, well that just consensual sex so it just make it okay, or you know (Rush interrupts) Rush: Well, some people say that. Some people say that Marylyn. (Marylyn laughing) They do. Some people say that pornography and all that is consensual. They run ads and have people respond to the ads, and so it's consensual, so it's okay, there are some people who say that. But look, we know that there are predators out there amongst faculty members. Marylyn: Exactly, and they're -- they're the repulsive, nasty, gross people that you would never want anything to do with under ordinary circumstances and this (Rush interrupts) Rush: You mean you can spot a predator by looking at one? Marylyn: Not always, but uhm, but, it's just -- it's just really repulsive and I know -- I know guys that actually use their position to really force themselves on girls (Rush saying -- Oh, come on) and you have no idea, I know there are a lot of people don't realize this but college professors have a great deal more power than you might realize. That, uhm, (Rush chuckling) if -- if one so desired, I mean I'm not the kind of person (Rush talking over Marylyn - That stuns me.) Rush: Marylyn, are any of these predator college professors women? Marylyn: No, none that I've ever heard of or anything like that. No. Rush: Now, Marylyn. (Marylyn laughing) Marylyn Marylyn: I know that there's a lot of guys that would really like to think of that, that way. Rush: Oh no, listen to this, so now -- so now we're fantasizing about predator female professors attacking us. Oh, what a (Rush laughing) Ahh, let's get Marylyn the lesbian back here and have a three way. We'll be back here in a just a second folks, don't go away. Promo: Rush & The Kimmer NewsRadio-WGST640 Ad: Auto Zone Ad: Stress Tabs Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:50:00. Immaadd2 Promo: The Debate -- News Radio WGST 640 Ad: Universal Search and Recovery Center Ad: Briggs & Stratton NewsRadio-WGST640 Rush: Got just one minute, I know you can do it. Caller: Uhh, mega ditto's Rush, from a conservative college professor, how bout that. Rush: Thank you sir. Caller: Uhm, yeah, I dated one of my students and I also ended up marrying another one, but I'll tell you when I did date the student, it was very uncomfortable for me and I swore I'd never do it again. The girl I married, I dated her after she was out of my class, but I think today in these days and times, I think the professors really hanging out with the sexual harassment, as far as doing that, you gotta be really careful, and question what you're doing, cause you're really hanging yourself out for sexual harassment. Rush: It depends, you know, it really does, and I'll tell you why. (Talking over caller - Uhh) No, I'll tell you why, it depends on the woman. If the woman is a Paula Jones type she can shout sexual harassment all day long and nobody's going to come to her defense. If she's not of the right class, if she's not of the right, ideology, and she shouts all of this, and the professor is very liberal, I'll guarantee you the woman is gonna get trashed, by women's groups. And we'll take a break my friends, a short one, twenty-one hours, the EIB Network, we'll return, see you shortly. NewsRadio-WGST640 Ad: Intelligent Office NewsRadio-WGST640 Wednesday, April 23, 2003. 02:55:00. Immaadd2 News Radio-News --WGST-640 Local News NewsRadio-WGST640 National News ABC-News