RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I need to share something with you here. It’ll be 25 years in August that I’ve been doing this show. And that’s long enough to notice things that you can’t possibly notice in your first five years or even ten. For example, I am now able to see how a whole bunch of things simply repeat themselves — issues, battles, political fights — how they repeat themselves, how a lot of this is just cycled and recycled.
I have to confess, when I first became aware of women in combat as a political issue this week my first reaction was, “What? No, no, we did that back in the nineties.” It really was. We did that. What are we doing that again for? And I had to stop myself and this was the learning experience. We’re simply recycling liberalism. We’re simply putting it through the grinder again. We’ve done women in combat. We’ve had the argument about it, just like we’ve had the argument over tax cuts versus tax increases. We’ve had the argument over deficit spending over balancing budgets. We’ve had all that, and yet they just recycle. And the thing that keeps the cycle going, obviously, is an infusion of young people into the process who don’t know about any of this stuff, they’re not old enough.
To a lot of people, the women in combat issue is the first time they’ve ever heard of it, even though we dealt with it back in the nineties. Every which way from Sunday we dealt with it. Every argument pro and con was made. This kind of came out of nowhere because we have a president here who — well, actually it doesn’t come out of nowhere. We have a president who is trying to essentially eliminate the defense posture of this country, really wants to downsize it, really does want to cut the defense department, all of the spending, various budgets, that’s where he really does want to cut.
We know that liberals always use the military as a social laboratory. As long as I’ve been alive, that’s what the military has been for, primarily, social experimentation. And women in combat is social experimentation. It’s where you try out new things that go against the norms. Clinton did it with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” gays in the military. It’s just a social playground. Late yesterday afternoon on CNN’s Newsroom, the anchor Don Lemon, who I don’t think was on CNN back in the nineties, so this may be his first go at women in combat. To him it may be the first time it’s ever come up, and it may be a great thing to him. He was talking to an Iraq war vet, Tulsi Gabbard, and they’re discussing women in combat, and Don Lemon said…
LEMON: Men and women are different, we know that. How should the military handle pregnancy, for example, for women in combat units? Should a combat unit leader be able to direct a woman member not to get pregnant?
RUSH: Okay, so there’s assumptions made in this question. Men and women are different. This guy must have read the TIME Magazine cover. As a good liberal, Don Lemon knows that men and women are different. He probably knows that they’re born different and he probably read that in TIME Magazine because they had a cover story on that back in 1998, or something. So he’s asking this Iraq war vet, “How should the military handle pregnancy?” See, it doesn’t occur to him that pregnant female soldiers in combat units may not actually be a good thing. He just assumes it’s going to happen with women in combat, you’re gonna have women pregnant. And how are we gonna deal with that, Tulsi? And here is Iraq war vet Tulsi Gabbard. She is a member of Congress now, a Democrat from Hawaii. This is what she said.
GABBARD: Looking at someone in a deployed setting, it’s not in their best interests to get pregnant overseas; but if it happens, it happens, and we take care of each other. We have a highly trained, highly skilled, very motivated force, and by opening these doors to women, we will only be stronger, because of the unique capabilities that women bring to the table.
RUSH: Now, that’s not what’s gonna happen. We’ve been there and done that. The only way… Look, let me dial back my passion because I know it’s scaring 24-year-old girls. I’m probably threatening. I don’t want to threaten anybody. But I’m just gonna tell you that in order to have women in combat, you are going to have to lower qualification standards. There’s simply no way around that.
It’s precisely because of what the brilliant Don Lemon said in the question: Men and women are different. There’s no way around it. So she can sit here and talk about, “We take care of each other. We’re a highly trained, highly skilled, very motivated force. By opening these doors to women, we’re gonna be stronger,” but no. I thought Dianne Feinstein and other people were saying the problem with Washington is too many men, too much testosterone?
So, anyway, “It’s a very motivated force and by opening these doors we’re gonna be stronger because of the unique capabilities that [pregnant] women,” that’s the question, “bring to the table.” That’s gonna make us stronger? It’s not going to make us stronger. But if that’s not the objective, then it doesn’t matter. If the objective is social engineering, to create a social laboratory, a payoff to the feminists for their votes and their donations, then it’s perfectly fine.
Women in combat. If you’re trying to please women who voted for you and fulfill the dreams of feminism, then fine. But in terms of making the military stronger, it actually doesn’t do that. Not in combat. Don’t anybody misunderstand me here. I have been through this. That’s the great thing about having done this for so long. We dealt with this problem way, way back in the nineties. The key, and Tulsi actually said it, is not getting pregnant when you’re a woman in combat.
That’s the key.
There are times to get pregnant, and that’s not one of them. So if you want women in combat and you don’t want ’em getting pregnant, what do you do? Well, many of you have heard this if you’ve been here a long time, but for those of you new to this, we’ll take you back to an idea that we had before. We came up with it back in the early nineties when there was a military operation to get Pineapple Face out of Panama.
That would be Manuel Noriega. If you look at his face, he looks like a pockmarked Pineapple. That’s why they call him Pineapple Face. Here’s what you do. We all know there are some assumptions here. Now, everybody knows these assumptions are true, but this is one of those times where if you mention them and you’re right, you offend people. So look, I’m just gonna tell you up front:
You might get offended by this. But that’s not the point here. I’m being factual. If you’re trying to avoid pregnancy among women in combat, there’s a way to do it — and it’s not, by the way, to prohibit sex, because you can’t do that. You can’t stop people from having sex. They’re gonna do that. It would be silly to institute a no-intercourse policy in the military. That’s not gonna work. People are gonna do it, right? You can’t stop it.
So how do we allow that with no pregnancy, and we don’t want to mess around with the pill. So if we have women in combat, there’s an easy way to do it. Now, here’s what we know. We know that women who live together, or who are housed together — in dormitories, for example, in sororities — after a certain passage of time… This is one of the marvels of creation. No one can explain it, but it happens.
Menstrual cycles happen to synchronize.
You can get mad at me all you want for saying it, but it happens to be true. It’s not a put-down, and it’s not taking away from the individuality of any women or woman. It just happens. So what we do is we create a force. We call it the All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion, and we segregate women enough in various bases and barracks so that you have synchronized menstrual cycles.
They’re timed in such a way that on any day of the year, you are guaranteed to have a fighting female force all in PMS, all during premenstrual syndrome. You can do it because they synchronize the cycles. So you house them together. It wouldn’t take much of a computer program to figure this out. No matter when you need them, you’re always going to have a combat-ready battalion of women on PMS. Pregnancy problem solved — and, and they’re pretty damn good during combat at the same time.
Talk to any man about it. I’m not being sexist here. We’re just dealing with reality. That’s how you do it. Now, I proposed this way back in the nineties. Put Molly Yard or whoever the leader of the NOW gang is in charge of this battalion. The possibilities are limitless here, and it accomplishes everything. We get women in combat, no pregnancy, and they’re ready to go on any day of the year.
They’re combat ready on PMS.
It’s all made possible by that miracle of synchronization that nobody can explain, but it does happen.
See? We try to help here.
RUSH: I was just checking the e-mail and people say, “You may not have heard about this, Rush, but women in the military already have this solved. There is a shot, an injection that they’re given that eliminates the menstrual cycle period for a whole year. So it’s never, ever a problem,” and that may well be true, but who knows what the side effects of that are? As I say, it’s a liberal laboratory, a social laboratory. Who knows what the effects of a shot are that eliminates the period for a year. I mean, what are the effects on childbirth later on? My way is au natural. It can’t be beat.
The reason it will never be adopted is because it’s my idea, but still.