All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
July 1, 2005, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The fastest three hours in media chugs on down the tracks.
It adds up to the fastest week in media.
And lo and behold, here we are.
We're already at Friday.
Greetings to you, thrill seekers and conversationalists, the Rush Lindbaugh program, making it all happen.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program here on our final hour, and a warning, Mr. Snerdley has returned to the call screener chair.
He only does this, it's very rare when we send Snerdley back to the chair, choice of last resort.
Did this for four or five years in the early days of the program?
And he hadn't put any calls up yet.
I'm assuming that some of you are being purposely difficult trying to set him off.
Email address, if you want to go that route, rush at EIBnet.com.
Hey, for those of you who tuned in, say, in the last hour or so, Rush, aren't you aware that Sandra Day O'Connor retired?
Oh, you aren't talking about Supreme Court.
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, because we've been there, done that.
If you missed it, if you missed the first half hour of this program, you missed everything there is to say about this, because I said it.
I reported what happened.
I told you what I think ought to happen next.
I told you who I think the nominee ought to be.
I told you why I think all this hysteria over the retirement of a lawyer is absurd, but what it represents and how this better change.
And then we moved on to other things.
As you know, we don't do topics on this program.
We don't devote the whole show to one subject.
You're going to be seeing Sandra Day O'Connor from now through the weekend because this is going to spark the news cycle.
But we dealt with it in less than a half hour.
So if you missed it, and if you're a podcaster, you'll be able to hear it in the first hour, first half hour of the program today.
If you're not a podcaster and you want to listen to this segment on the website, you'll be able to do that this afternoon.
We update the site to reflect the contents of today's program.
We are moving on.
We moved on since the first half hour of the program.
Let's go back to the audio soundbites.
Last night was quite interesting when the subject of Karl Rove and his comments about liberals and how they view terrorists was discussed on some of the cable shows last night.
Let's go back to Wednesday, June the 15th, and just listen to what Karl Rove said that still has him in a tizzy out there, a portion of his remarks at the fundraiser in New York City for the Conservative Party of New York.
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war.
Liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.
Now, there has been hell to pay for this.
Liberals demanded that Bush fire Rove, that Rove resign, that Rove apologized.
Same people who didn't have a word to say about Dick Durbin's outrageous comments about Club Gitmo.
So just to give you an example of what Rove meant and what he was talking about, we can go last night to MSNBC's hardball with Chris Matthews talking to NBC News veteran John Palmer.
Why is it significant that a young person in their 20s who is involved in politics to the point of being elected president of their country would not have been involved with their politics back in the hostage taking, where that was the center of Iranian politics at the time.
What Rove is, or what Matthews is talking about here is the new president of Iran is just a young guy in his 20s, interested in politics.
Where else was he going to be, but right in the middle of the hostage-taking?
A lot of people in the mainstream press turned over every rock they could to try to suggest that the new Iranian president was not part of the hostage takers and not one of the guards, not one of the bad guys during the 1979 hostage crisis.
And even if he was, so what?
So many years ago, he's a young idealistic guy in his 20s.
I mean, these people can change.
And this is precisely what Rove is talking about.
Here we have whether this guy was part of the hostage crisis or not.
He's the new president of Iran and he's a hardliner.
And about Iran's nuclear program, this new president has said, I'm proud of it.
I'm not going to make any bones about it.
I'm not going to try to convince people we don't have it.
We do have a nuclear program.
It's going to go online soon.
We're happy about it.
But here, once again, what you have is an effort, and Matthews typifies it here, to downplay the dastardliness, to downplay the degree to which our enemies are evil or bad people.
And that's, you know, it just is, it never ceases to amaze, no matter how hard the liberals try.
They just can't seem to avoid blaming this country or trying to defend or explain why an evil leader is not such a bad thing.
Just because we say it, so what?
I mean, he's a kid in his 20s, he grew up, well, why wouldn't he be involved in politics then?
So what?
So we want to offer them therapy, meaning we want to understand them and we don't want to be quick to condemn them, despite the historical record.
Now, you got to hear this next one to believe it.
In this next bite from Hardball as well, John Palmer compares hostage-taking of Americans in Iran to being in the Peace Corps.
Chris Matthews compares the Iranian hostage-takers to the American revolutionaries.
And then Palmer calls America the evil empire.
Listen to this.
This is an exchange between Chris Matthews and NBC's veteran reporter John Palmer last night.
Why would Iran, a revolutionary government, still deny the participation of their new president in the first act of revolution?
That is a very good question because you would think that's like being in the Peace Corps.
Or if you're running in this country in the American Revolution.
Right.
You'd proved your mettle when you were a young man against the evil empire.
I know what they're trying to say, but they can't help themselves.
They're trying to speak from the Iranian perspective, but they don't understand how most people are going to hear them when they talk.
But to compare the hostage takers in 1979 to the Peace Corps, I don't even, I don't get that analogy yet.
And of course, it's like being in the American Revolution.
Once again, this moral equivalence.
Well, hey, we can't say Iran's a bad place.
We can't say Saddam is a bad guy because look at what we've done.
There's always this hand-wringing and it always comes back to the fact that America stinks too, that America somehow isn't any good.
And the people of this country know that that's not true.
This is the greatest country on earth, not perfect, but for crying out loud, nobody here wants to live anywhere else.
But it's just, it's absurd to make these comparisons.
And it's done so, I think, you know, out of guilt, bending over backwards to be fair, to not be critical.
After all, we're the nation that is the one superpower in the world.
These are just the poor Iranians.
Look at how they live.
It's all dusty and they don't have any air conditioning.
And oh, it makes this feel so bad.
And, you know, they're just trying their hardest, just like we did back in our founding days.
And it's just to draw this moral equivalence is just outrageous and offends people to the degree that I don't think these people who utter it understand it.
Now, this guy's my friend.
I mean, I've had a lot of fair treatment, good times with Brian Williams at NBC, but he got caught up in this whole manner of thinking.
He was talking to Andrea Mitchell last night.
She did a story on the nightly news on the president-elect of Iran, the alleged hostage-taker, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
And after her report, Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell had this exchange.
Andrea, what would it all matter if proven true?
Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists at the time by the British crown, after all.
Indeed, Brian, and all of the student leaders of the time who now are in the power structure in Iran were revolutionaries.
It was an enormously popular takeover.
They all supported it.
But it would have a political effect because it would help the administration in its very apparent efforts to undermine this new government and to paint it as a radical government.
The administration, this is the problem, Andrea.
Why don't you see Iran for what it is?
It's only what this administration says it is.
You know, Bill Clinton said the same things about Saddam Hussein at George W. Bush, and nobody batted an eye, and nobody ripped on Clinton for being this critical.
Let Bush say it, and he's a liar, and he's a dunce and all this.
And now we get that former U.S. presidents were revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists at the time by the British crown.
What is the one difference that they don't see?
Our so-called terrorist founding fathers have a legacy.
It's the U.S. Constitution.
It is a legacy of the freest and greatest country the world has ever known.
They were revolting against oppression.
They were revolting against tyranny and high taxation.
They were revolting and establishing freedom.
You cannot say that that's what the Iranian revolutionaries are doing.
They're not demanding freedom for the people of Iran.
This new president called for an Islamic holy war against the West.
I really, you know, you get to a point here where you just have to scratch your head because this constant effort, moral equivalence, breaks down so soon in their arguments that you can't intellectually explain it.
I just wanted you to hear this.
In fact, here's a montage of some of the former hostages saying that they think this new president is the guy who held them.
When I spotted him, I stopped dead in my tracks and said to my wife, I know that guy.
He was one of them.
There are certain things that were permanently burned into your psyche and your memory.
We were in a life-threatening situation a good part of the time.
You were just, you remember things.
If anyone knows whether it is he or not, it must be my colleagues who are held by these people.
Take a quick break here and be right back after this.
Don't go away.
The views expressed by the hosts on this program, documented to be almost always right, 98.5% of the time.
So I decided, folks, I thought it'd be a cool thing to see how the NAGs were reacting to the resignation and retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor.
I mean, after all, Sandra Day O'Connor was what?
She was the first woman in history to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
So I figured if I went to the NAGS website, that I would see a great tribute to Sandra Day O'Connor.
thought that I would see glowing praise for her work.
And I thought I would see inspirational messages to other women.
See, you too can be what Sandra Day O'Connor has become because of our great work here at the NAGS.
The National Association for Gals, my pet name for the now babes.
Well, that's not what you get when you go to the NAGS website.
When you go to the NAGS website, what you get is this.
You get a headline, Justice O'Connor resigns, dot, dot, dot, women's lives on the line.
And then we have a picture of four women, Clara Duvall, Pauline Roberson-Shirley, Becky Bell, and Rosie Jimenez.
And underneath these pictures, it says at the NAG website, these are the faces of women who died because they could not obtain safe and legal abortions.
If Roe versus Wade is overturned, these pictures could include your daughter, your sister, your mother, your best friend, your granddaughter, dot, dot, dot.
Don't let George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate put another anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court.
Take action now.
Don't you think you NAGS could have waited a day or wait till the Nominique is named?
How about a tribute to the first woman in history to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?
But oh no, there's not even a picture of her.
There's not even, I mean, there's one word that they give to Justice O'Connor, and that word is resigns.
Here it is.
For those of you watching on the titto cam, let me zoom in on this.
You get a better look at it there.
I mean, that's what it looks like a watted poster that you'd see inside a post office.
Here's Lancaster, California.
Alan, hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Oh, thank you very much, Rush.
This question is sort of a bookend for one of your earlier questions, which was, let me see, where do you think liberalism started?
My question, you know, that reminded me of when I was in high school.
And I wrote a paper.
At that point, food was being limited or something.
I postulated a future where all you could eat was seaweed and water.
And my question was, where do you think liberalism will be in 50 years?
All we can eat is seaweed and water.
Or soybeans.
Soybeans.
What is it, tofu?
I don't even know if tofu existed when I was in high school.
I mean, maybe it did, but I hadn't heard of it yet.
I never tasted tofu until it was first served to me by a liberal.
Let's see.
Where do I think liberalism will be in 50 years?
Well, it depends on trends.
I mean, a lot of this depends on where conservatism is in 50 years.
I mean, liberalism is always going to have to be fought.
Liberalism is going to always have to be battled.
It can't sit around and just wait for it to implode on its own as it's doing now.
You have to capitalize on that and grow, and you have to do that by capturing more and more minds and hearts of the American people.
Now, if the trend that we're on now does not end, and who can predict that, because so many things just can happen inside of mere months, but liberalism has never been in a more decimated spot than it is now.
It has never been in a more precarious and risky position.
It has been exposed.
Average Americans are learning who liberals are, what they really believe, and how they're not for the little guy, how they're big government-oriented, how they are constantly choosing sides against this country, how they always end up blaming this country.
More and more people are learning this.
This has coincided with the bust up of the mainstream media monopoly because there was an association between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, which is the home of liberalism.
If the trend keeps up, liberalism is going to be reduced to, in this country, a couple of college professors along the lines of Ward Churchill in every major university.
The university will be the last place that gets cleansed, and that could take a couple generations.
It could take 50 years for this to happen.
These people have tenure and they have control over who gets hired and who doesn't get fired.
And it'll also depend on what happens in the courts.
Because liberalism may fail as a thing that appeals to average Americans.
But if the left succeeds in institutionalizing liberalism via the court system, it won't matter what the people think because they won't be able to touch it.
If the courts continue to get more and more liberal and pretend that the Constitution is nothing more than a liberal manifesto and interpret the Constitution to mean liberalism here, liberalism there, then they will, by act of law, enshrine liberalism as law.
And that will protect liberalism from being voted out in Congress, which is the reason this resignation by Sandra Day O'Connor and any future ones are crucial, I think even more important to liberals than who the next president is.
I think they care more about this court than they do making Hillary the president.
Hillary would be icing on the cake.
It's precisely because they know liberalism can't win at the ballot box.
They know that liberalism cannot win a popularity contest from the American people, and it hasn't been able to for the longest time.
We would have never had abortion if it were left to a vote to the people.
We would have never had forced busing.
We wouldn't have had affirmative action the way it has been structured.
We wouldn't have had the regulations against private property rights that we have.
We wouldn't have the wacko environmental regulations we have if all of this were subject to the votes of the elected representatives of the people.
But many of these things, most of these things have been enacted not by the representatives of the people who have been elected, but rather by judges and courts.
And as look at the hysteria here that is now accompanying a resignation of one lawyer, one lawyer resigns out of nine, and there is a hysteria out there over who's going to replace her and what that's going to mean.
And that's because this court is a bunch of activists and lawyers, not judges, and they have become the final authority.
Now, this proves to me that Americans crave a final authority.
They want there to be a final authority, somebody who has the answers.
They don't want that to be God.
The liberals don't.
They don't want it to be the Constitution.
They want it to be a bunch of liberal judges because that'll institutionalize liberalism and distance itself.
So the courts are key here until knowing what that's going to happen to be hard to predict what's going to become a liberalism.
Oh, man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
One in six countries in the world face food shortages this year because of severe droughts that could become semi-permanent under climate change.
UN scientists warned yesterday.
These people, there's hysteria now in the environmentalist wacko movement leading up to the G8 summit.
That's what all this is about.
One in six countries facing a food shortage.
Which country, quickly, Brian, which country, we'll see how closely you've been listening this week.
Which country, according to the UN, is the greatest worry in this statistic, one in six countries facing a food shortage.
Which country?
What?
Africa!
Africa!
Everybody's focused on Africa.
Live aid, Africa, Bono, Africa, Bush, malaria, aid, Africa, global warming, Africa, sand, dust, soot, Africa.
And global warming, Africa.
It's all about Africa as we head to the G8 summit.
Speaking, here's another, this is the second day in a row for this.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor.
Over the past several decades, industrial countries have made major strides in cleaning up pollutants, roiling from smokestacks.
But some researchers now say this progress could have a troubling side effect, accelerating the pace of global warming.
The reason?
Tiny pollutant particles, once airborne, can reflect sunlight back into space, easing temperatures in what is known as aerosol cooling.
By cleaning up industrial pollution, countries are reducing the effect of this cooling.
Now, nobody's recommending that nations halt efforts to curb pollution.
Still, when this factor is taken into account, global warming could outpace the level now forecast by climatologists.
Already climate estimates sponsored by the United Nations foresee average temperatures rising by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
So we're back to this.
Had this story for you yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, and we've had it for you in prior weeks.
Yesterday's story presented itself this way.
You know, this global warming, it's really worse than we thought.
We just don't know it because all this dust and soot is cooling the planet.
Wait a minute.
If the dust and soot is cooling the planet, how can it be masking global warming?
Well, because if it wasn't there, we'd be steaming and boiling hot.
But it's there.
Yes, but we're trying to get rid of it because it causes global warming.
Wait, you say pollution causes global warming?
Yes, but this pollution is causing aerosol cooling.
All of this hysteria leading up to the G8 summit.
Oh, the stack just keeps giving.
This is from the Associated Press.
EPA blocked from human pesticide studies.
The Senate voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that intentionally expose people to pesticides when considering permits for pest killers.
By a 60 to 37 vote, the Senate approved a provision from Senator Barbara Babbs Boxer that would block the EPA from relying on such testing, including 24 human pesticide experiments currently under review as it approves or denies pesticide applications.
Boxer's proposal would block the EPA from using data taken from human testing for the budget year starting October 1st.
She said, let's use this time to throw out this rule that they're drafting, which is immoral on its face because it would allow the EPA itself to test pregnant women and fetuses.
And let's go back to the basic rule of science and morality.
Now, wait just a second, Ms. Boxer.
Something about your quote has me confused.
Let's use this time to throw out this rule that they're drafting, which is immoral on its face because it would allow EPA itself to test pregnant women and fetuses.
Let's go back to the basic rules of science and morality, this from a woman who is for abortion.
All of a sudden, she's for abortion, but here comes some pesticide testing that might kill fetuses and it's immoral?
Come, come, Ms. Boxer.
I, as an open-minded individual, very concerned and confused here, the EPA and pesticides, killing fetuses is immoral.
But you doing it in abortion is fine?
This is the conundrum liberalism has.
It is morally indefensible.
It is morally bankrupt.
And they don't even know how they sound to people.
Ladies and gentlemen, Sam in Grand Junction, Colorado.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Mega Doodles, Rushy, how you doing today?
Good, sir.
Never better.
Thank you.
I just wanted to go back to Carl Roe's statements and Ellen Tousser's comments when she got back from her tour at Club Gitmo.
In her press conference, she used the words incarceration, inmate, model prisoners, and prosecution.
Now, if you're going to prosecute somebody, you need indictments, correct?
Yep.
And if you prosecute them and find them guilty, everybody knows that a liberal's definition of incarceration is for rehabilitation, not punishment.
So to rehabilitate somebody, what do you need?
Therapy and understanding.
They just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
I just love listening to liberal Democrats shoot themselves in the foot when they talk about something and they reveal their true feelings about other things.
It's just amazing.
And you really helped point that out to me in the many, many years that I've listened to you.
Well, you're good.
You are more than welcome.
But you've actually caught an angle that I missed.
Oh, man.
You're absolutely right about it.
Are you a subscriber to my website?
No, sir, I'm not.
Well, I'm going to make you a subscriber to my website for this so you can join the podcasters and maybe even get a...
In fact, I'll throw in a couple Club Gitmo t-shirts as well.
Oh, I think you're going to be able to do that.
Yes, sir.
Oh, my goodness.
Thank you, Rush.
So you hang on out there, Sam, and we'll get all the information necessary to make this happen.
You can choose the two t-shirts, slogans that you want.
In fact, Sam, I'm going to give you one of all four.
So you'll have the complete set of all four and a jihad Java coffee mug.
Oh, man, you're awesome, dude.
And you just tell us the sizes that you need.
We'll give you the information necessary.
And we've got to get some from you, too, to sign you up and make you a comp member for a year.
Because that's a good point.
Ellen Tosher goes down, Club Gitmo, talks about how wonderful it is.
And in the process of that, she said, it's so wonderful.
We know that they got to be sending the treatment elsewhere because we're on to them.
So the rumors then came out that we're doing the real dirty work on secret ships at sea.
They do therapy, indictments.
Ellen Tosher proving Karl Rove right.
I'm convinced that they really, they're tone deaf.
I've used this analogy before.
You know, like these sports team mascots, I think the best sports team mascot there ever was.
And I don't mean to insult Philly Fanatic because I never saw the Philly Fanatic in person, but I saw the San Diego chicken, Ted Giannoulis.
And I often thought what made him the best of all these, because he knew in that costume exactly how people saw him.
He knew, he couldn't see himself in it, but he had the ability to understand how he saw, how he was seen by the fans and what was funny and what wasn't.
And I think the liberals have lost the ability to understand how they are perceived.
For example, USA Today, holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, their founder, Al Newharth, occasionally gets out of the lounge chair from clipping coupons, throws away the piña colada with the umbrella in it, and writes a column.
And he did so today.
And his column at USA Today says what Iraq needs is a Walter Cronkite, a strong, trusted, non-political voice.
Now, Walter Cronkite has admitted that Walter Cronkite was one of the hugest liberals going.
We all knew it when he was reporting, but he was the most trusted man in America.
We all know that when Walter Cronkite said, and that's the way it is, that's not the way it was.
It's the way it wasn't.
The way Walter Cronkite saw it and wanted everybody else to see it, but it's not the way it was.
Everybody knows this now, yet Al Newharth says, President Bush went on the air this week to pretend again that things are okay in Iraq, shades of President Johnson of Vietnam nearly 40 years ago.
So here comes that template.
The most important similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that both Democratic and Republican presidents lied to us in wartime.
To refresh your memory, here's how we got out of the Vietnam quagmire.
Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, said there's no way this war can be justified any longer.
Johnson lamented to AIDS, I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
He announced he would not run for re-election.
The crucial difference between Vietnam and Iraq is there is no Cronkite to call Bush's bluff.
No.
Instead, we've had a brokaw, we've had a rather, we've had a Jennings, we have had the mainstream media, we've had, I don't know how many Walter Cronkites, and they've all failed, Mr. Newharth.
All of these Walter Cronkites combined have failed, just as your column is going to fail.
Because while there is no single Walter Cronkite today, while there are 25 or 30 of them all saying the same thing, there are loud voices in opposition too.
And the American people are no longer buffaloed by the voice of one man.
That's shocking to think that one man got us out of Vietnam and may have led to a genocide in Southeast Asia.
Quick time out back after this.
Stay with us.
And back to the phones.
By the way, Mr. Snerdley, I'm getting some email comments that you're being very nice and gracious.
The people you're turning down are saying that you're doing it politely.
Quentin in Zimmerman, Minnesota.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to Open Line Friday.
Hi, Rush Didos from a White African American Not on Welfare.
I'm wanting to be able to tell you that you're right in two aspects.
And one of them is when you said that when you export liberalism to other countries, it kills them.
And I was born and raised in Zimbabwe and I've been in South Africa.
It's doing that just there.
And most of South Africa is very liberal.
And you can hear that through their talk radio stations.
Secondly, when you talk about the fact that they will do anything to implement their philosophies, do you remember Dick Cheney, and I think it came up on the news that he did not vote for Mandela's release.
And my implication with that is because he was a terrorist and still to this day has not renounced violence.
And there's a commonality between Dick Cheney between Mandela and Becky Mugabe, who are terrorists or ex-terrorists, and the liberals.
And I'd like for you to be able to make those connections, if you would not mind.
You want to try to make the connect?
Go right ahead.
It's open line.
If you can make the connection between Mandela and Mugabe, I'd like to hear this.
Well, the connections are that these guys were all terrorists before, Ralph, Rush.
But what I'm wanting for you to do is to be able to connect them here in the United States because you were correct.
When you export all the people.
None of them want me to.
Oh, you want to.
Yeah, what I'm wanting you to connect is the philosophies, Rush, because the philosophy is that when you export liberalism to the rest of the world, it kills those countries.
No, I don't know how long you've been listening.
This has been one of my age-old ideas is to export liberalism to our competitors and kill them.
It worked in Japan.
You know, we exported women's rights.
We exported laziness.
We got rid of the Japanese work ethic.
We sowed the seeds of disrespect for parents among Japanese kids.
Now all they want to do is go to Hawaii and lounge on the beach with those piña coladas with umbrellas in them.
You're right.
Everywhere we've exported liberalism, it's decimated people, be there our competition economically or not.
But Rush, what they're wanting to do is to go one step further, and they're wanting us to fund their failed policies now, like they did here with social welfare program, and it didn't work.
We had to cut it off.
My idea is to cut aid, all aid to Africa.
Because if you cut all aid, you don't put it into the pockets of dictators like Mbeki, Mugabe, and all those.
And then the people will rise up because they're wanting to do it.
Zimbabwe is a clear example.
I know.
Zimbabwe is a hellhole.
And the fact that the left in this country finds nothing about it to criticize and instead get behind efforts to help those people.
We need to send those people money.
It just, it's infuriating.
But let me ask you about a point.
I don't know if you heard me mention this, but I was reading a column written by Tina Brown in the Washington Post yesterday.
And I forget her expert guest, but she claimed that he was just an authority on Africa.
And this man's point was we can send all the money to Africa we want and it isn't going to matter.
But because all of the oppression and tyranny and the corruption over there, the brightest and the best of Africa leave the country and relocate.
They educate themselves in other countries and they end up living there.
The best and brightest of Africa leave because they don't need to put up with what goes on there in most African countries, not all, but most of them.
Is that accurate?
Absolutely.
And it's actually scary because what they're doing is they're going on that.
That's why you see Mugabe specifically kicking out the whites because those are the people that stayed because they wanted to carry on staying.
And most of these people want to carry on staying, but economically they've been forced out.
By virtue of Mugabe seizing their farms.
Well, not only by that, Rush, by the free market philosophy.
Socialism doesn't work.
And they are pushing it onto the people by not, if you're not going to, they want, like even in South Africa, it's going to carry on happening in South Africa.
They want to expropriate land there.
And what Mbeki is saying is, hey, listen, the land that we're expropriating, you want a certain value for it.
We don't think that value is right, even though it's a free market value.
We're going to tell you what the right price for that property is.
So they just take using the free market in my interpretation to facilitate socialism.
And that's what liberals are trying to do here is use the people that are making money to facilitate their philosophy that doesn't work.
To a point, to a point.
Yeah, but look, my time is limited here.
I want to go back to something else that you said because the answer to that is take a little bit more time than I've got.
But you suggested that the way to really clean all this problem up is stop sending money like we're trying to deal with our own welfare problem here.
Just cut them off.
Come up with welfare reform that requires work or attempts to get work and so forth.
Historically, your contentions were accurate.
Whether you apply it individually when a person loses a job and doesn't have any resources and has to go get another one or to a society or country.
The big problem that we faced in this country doing this, it took us, the war on poverty started in the 60s.
And actually, you take it back to FDR.
It took two, three generations to get the country, and we're still not there, weaned off of an entitlement mentality.
The reason that it's so seductive is because nobody cares about results.
All anybody is interested in feeling good because of their good intentions.
The liberals who gave us the great society never will allow the results to be discussed because they're dismal.
The war on poverty is still a war.
When are we going to get out of that war?
When are we going to get out of the war on poverty?
Let's have a timetable for the war on poverty.
How about that war?
When are we going to get out of that?
Because it's been an utter failure.
And look at the destruction and look at the damage the war on poverty has done.
But we can't say that because the intentions of those people who came up with it were good and honorable.
We are good people.
We're trying to help.
And so take it down to the citizen level.
This Live 8 concert.
We need to help Africa.
Yes, we do.
We've seen pictures.
It's horrible.
I will contribute money.
And bingo, you feel good.
People want to feel good and people want to feel charitable and they want to feel like they're helping.
So they respond to these causes, but little attention is paid to the results.
They don't work.
And so it's a long educational process on this, but we're not going to give up on this.
There's no sense because it'll all work in time if you just stick to it.
Thanks for the call, Quentin.
I got to run because we're out of time.
Be back here in just a second.
Okay, folks, I got to go.
I got to stop.
Get some fireworks so I can have some ammo to throw at these ingrids that show up and disturb everybody on the beach this weekend.
I'm fighting fire with fire this one.
I'm just going to sit there and take it anymore.
Hope you have a great weekend.
If you're a propane American, a charcoal American, doesn't matter to me.
Just make sure you pollute.
It's cooling the planet.
▲
Export Selection