All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
April 20, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now, this is funny.
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you.
Rush Limbaugh the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
A thrill and a delight to have you with us.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800 282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
I just go through some of the emails and the uh the 24-7 subscriber account.
And there are several reviews of my translation of uh the Chicom President uh who's speech this morning of the arrival ceremony of the White House, and none of them, folks, none of them are favorable.
Here's an example.
Sorry, Rush, very boring.
I'll log off and check back later.
Rush, sorry, it didn't work.
I was more interested in what this man had to say than in your commentary.
I believe it crossed the line.
It wasn't even funny, a waste of valuable radio time.
Dear Rush, your translation is not funny.
More important things to talk about during your three two short hours.
And the other one was uh yawn.
Show really sucks so far.
Please get back to broadcast excellence.
Well, in honor of these stamps of approval, ladies and gentlemen, I've decided we're going to replay uh my translation of President Who's remarks.
We'll do that at the opening of the next hour.
A little about one hour from now, we will actually Mike, you might get ready for that now, just to go get the the whole opening.
Well, don't get the whole opening segment because it's gonna we don't want to make it sound like I'll open that hour live and then we'll just go to the uh the translation part.
Since uh since the reviews are pouring in and they are rave reviews, eh.
Might as well let you hear it again since you enjoyed it so much.
Um, I have a piece here from the Harvard Crimson.
That's the student newspaper up there, and it's it's by a guy named Piotr Brzezinski.
And uh somebody's gonna kill this man.
Requiem for environmentalism.
Environmentalism is dead, he writes.
This pronouncement might seem a touch premature, especially to the 500 million people who will celebrate the 37th Earth Day Saturday.
A collective not dead yet wheeze.
However, these numbers mask the growing irrelevance of the environmentalist movement.
Having lost its credibility with alarmist rhetoric, an obsolete ideological ballast, the movement must develop a moderate discourse while challenging its previous assumptions and outdated theories.
The contemporary environmentalist wacko movement faces a stark choice, change tactics or fade into irrelevance.
Over the past decade, environmentalists have achieved few political victories and utterly failed to influence the general public.
As indicated by a recent MIT study, the public knows little about environmental problems, cares even less.
Out of twenty-one national and international issues, Americans ranked environmental problems 13th, well below terrorism, taxes, crime, and drugs.
And I'll give you an example of what he's talking about in case you missed this at the end of the program yesterday.
I actually ought to go back to the stack and find I could uh do it better justice if I had it in front of me, but uh some guy wrote in the Washington Post that we need to start looking at uh at obesity as pollution.
And he went on to conclude that the the modern day uh uh consuming meat is is just as bad for the environment as driving an SUV.
Eating meat is the equivalent of today's of yesterday's Joe Camel.
Uh things like this are just absurd.
And uh maybe that was a different story, because there were two of them.
Yes, that's right.
The SODOS guy wanted to have uh uh pollution credits associated with calories that people would only be allowed to own and purchase so many calories, and they could buy other calorie credits because it's all pollution.
He says it's a it's it's it's wrong to look at this now as a problem of obesity, it's a problem of pollution.
It's absurd.
That's just a couple of examples of of how off the charts these people are and have been for the longest time.
Contrary to popular opinion, this is back now to the piece in the Harvard Crimson, contrary to popular opinion, U.S. environment is getting healthier.
The U.S. population is more than doubled since 1970, yet forest coverage has increased.
Measurements of major air pollutants, sulfur, suspended particulates, and carbon monoxide Have registered declines of 15 to 75%.
And likewise, the number of healthy rivers and lakes has roughly doubled since the first Earth Day, and Lake Erie, declared dead in the 70s, now supports a healthy fishing industry.
There are exceptions to this positive trend.
The overall direction is unmistakable.
The U.S. natural environment is improving so much so that some environmentalist wackos had to come out the other day and blame cleaner air for global warming.
Yes, because more sunlight is reaching us, and it's getting hotter and it's getting more uncomfortable.
We're destroying the planet, the ice caps are melting, and it's all because we're cleaning the air.
No matter what we do, it leads to global warming.
There was a story the other day that giant chunks of ice fall out of the sky.
Nobody saw an airplane up there.
It was a cloudless day, and a giant chunk of ice just bam right through somebody's roof.
Answer global warming.
Nobody knows where the hell it comes from.
Nobody knows how it happens.
They just assume that it's it's ice.
If it's blue, it does come from airplanes.
If it's blue ice, it comes from the restrooms.
Uh, the lavatories, if you will, on uh on airplanes.
You can't see them if they're up there at 35 and 37,000 feet, unless they have a contrail.
And who's spanning?
I mean, you're gonna sit all day and look up, and besides, even if chunk of ice did drop off one, you wouldn't see it until it was too late.
Yes, yes, I've I've got the polar bears.
Let me, where did I where did I put that?
The polar bear um.
I've got stuff scattered all over this desk today.
The polar bears are dying.
It's in Ah, it's a green peace mission.
Yes.
Here's another classic for you.
Two U.S. explorers plan to start a four-month summer expedition to the North Pole next month to gather information on the habitat of an animal they believe could be the first victim of global warming.
The polar bear.
Lonnie Dupree and Eric Larson plan to travel 1,100 miles by foot and canoe over the Arctic Ocean to test the depth and density of the ice in summer in a mission sponsored by Greenpeace.
According to some scientific predictions, the Arctic Ocean could become ice free in the summer within a hundred years.
What was it?
Um, guess what if that happens?
You know what's going to happen if that happens.
We're gonna discover more oil up there than people know exists.
It's in fact, a bunch of big oil companies and uh explorers and entrepreneurs are hoping this is true because it's tough to go up there and drill for oil now when you're gonna go through so much ice.
It's a really formidable uh uh environment and habitat.
But if they're right about the Arctic Ocean uh uh melting, the ice cap is going to make discovery of oil even better, and that's gonna enhance even more global warming.
It's gonna it's it's going to delay the uh uh uh onset of alternative fuels.
The more oil we discover, and I'll tell you what, if if if if conditions become ripe for going up there to explore, drill, and extract it, I guarantee you people are gonna do it.
So there are positives to this.
Anyway, according to these scientific predictions, the Arctic Ocean could become ice free in the summer within a hundred years.
Polar bears, folks, cannot survive without sea ice, and the U.S. now.
I have witnessed that that's not true.
Because I, my friends, an animal lover, have been to the Central Park Zoo.
I've been to the Central Park Zoo in the summertime, and they got a couple polar bears in there.
And they do have to throw ice, they put ice in there and the polar bears lay on it out in the sun.
They don't seem to be too bothered by it.
But I don't know that it's sea ice.
But if polar bears can live in the central park, I'm not suggesting that they do it.
But it's like saying the spotted owl can only live in old growth trees when you find a couple of nests in a red Kmart sign.
The idea they can only live on polar ice.
Anyway, they can't survive without sea ice.
The U.S. government said in February it would consider whether the bears should be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Now get this.
I'm not making this up.
Here we're the whole story up to this point has been about how it's so damned hot up there that the ice caps are melting and a polar bears are threatened.
They may all go extinct.
We need to put them on the endangered species list, right?
Next paragraph.
Unusually heavy snow and ice last year, forced Dupre and Larson to call off a similar mission.
But now they plan to launch Project Thin Ice 2006, saving the polar bear on May 1st from Canada, traveling to the North Pole and then back to Greenland.
So it's getting so warm, and the circumstances are so threatening that there was so much snow and ice that they had to cancel this mission to save the polar bears last year.
Back after this.
And we'll get back to your phone calls in just a moment here.
Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, as far as the uh the translation of President Who's speech, I've been paying a little bit more attention here to the detractors, and I it's and uh I found a couple others.
Uh uh how dare you say that about a visiting head of state.
So that's what this is all about.
I got too close to the truth for some of you people.
You don't want to hear the truth about a ChICOM.
Let me warn you people about something.
I I I'll repeat this as often as is necessary.
Everything done on this program, whether it's done in the vein of a serious discussion, whether it's done with a humor, whether it's done as parody or satire, there is a point to be made behind all of it.
It is not just wild rambling.
I suggest that you people who didn't like it the first time listen to it when we replay it.
Because there is lots to learn in this translation.
It may not be exactly what he said, but it's pretty damn close to what he thinks.
And that was the whole point.
Um I don't think I've seen this anywhere in the drive-by media.
This is from the Middle East Newsline website.
The U.S. military has reported a huge decline in attacks on Iraqi vital facilities.
Officials said that attacks against Iraq's vital infrastructure have decreased by 60% over the last three months.
They said the uh reduction reflected the development and capabilities of Iraqi security forces.
On April 13th, Major General Rick Lynch, the spokesman for the U.S. led coalition, said that Iraqi security forces have successfully protected vital infrastructure sites.
Uh, he said that Iraq's military and security forces compromise quarter of a million trained and equipped Iraqi personnel.
You seen this anywhere in the drive-by media?
I haven't either.
Because it doesn't move the action line forward.
A drive-by media action line is the rocks falling apart, missions of failure.
Rumsfeld's stinks and uh and needs to uh resign.
Also have some news about uh generals.
Or a general, not the six generals.
There's another general, General Motors stock is up 10% on sales improvement and a less than expected loss.
Last year, in the first quarter, General Motors lost over a billion dollars.
This quarter they lost only 323 million.
That's progress.
Well, it is, and so their stock price went up 10%.
Now, where did the improvement come from?
What are you shaking your head at in there?
I know $323 million a big well I'm you.
Well, well, you snurdly wants to know how they can stay in business when they lose that kind of money.
This is nothing compared to the airline industry.
Well, um the way you stay in business when you're losing big money like that is you pay your CEO big money.
It's real simple.
That's how you stay in pay your CEO big money and then give them big retirement package.
Where did the improvement of General Motors come from?
The improvement was driven primarily by higher production of full-size SUVs and pickups.
This, according to an analyst from Key Bank, Brett Hosleton.
GM's global auto sales rose 4.4%, 2.2 million units in the first quarter.
Strong gains in the Asia Pacific region and in Latin America offset by declines in the United States and Canada.
So while all of these uh people in this country are panicking over the rising gasoline price and SUVs and so forth, people around the world are buying them up.
So much so that General Motors uh had a much better uh first quarter than uh anybody expected.
And not only was a loss, but it was it was a huge trend, and that's why the stock price went up uh 10%.
Uh 10%.
Still, there's a 17% overall sales decline for the month, and it brought GM's market share below 24%, which is less than half of where it stood about 45 years ago at its peak.
Oil prices are at a record high.
SUVs and pickups are hot sellers.
Prius hybrid sales fell 23% in March.
I don't know about you folks, but this this darn free market's not going the way the social engineers had planned it.
We've been hearing nothing but doom and gloom.
You need to get out of your big SUV.
You need to get out of these big pickups.
You need to save big bucks because the oil price is going through the roof and gasoline prices are going up, and we're all going to die.
And yet GM's uh improvement, uh, if you will, is all based on the increased sales of massive SUVs, full size and pickup trucks.
All right, Robert Samuelson today in the Washington Post, the guy is good, has a column on immigration.
It's called Conspiracy Against Assimilation.
And I want to lead into my I don't know how to read the whole thing to you or maybe maybe any of it.
I don't need to.
I can summarize it pretty well for you.
Um but the you know the 800-pound gorilla in the illegal immigration debate is this.
Are we a melting pot or are we a mosaic?
Are we a nation of Americans or are we a nation of hyphenated Americans?
Now, you you you'd think uh that based on history, the answer is obvious that the melting pot has worked.
The Tower of Babel failed.
Having a brilliant, lovely mosaic is not what made this country.
We are a melting pot.
But my friends, success is not a model to liberals.
Remember, how many times have I cited liberal failure as a resume enhancement?
Jimmy Carter comes to mind.
Great liberal Democrats who fail get launched to the top of their party, top of their movement.
They gain stature as they fail.
Now, what is it about this debate?
Samuelson doesn't use these words, but he uh he nails it.
The conspiracy against assimilation, there are actually people in this country who are for illegal immigration, you know who they are, who don't want assimilation.
What is it that liberals need?
What do liberals need in order to remain liberals?
They need victims, right?
They need dependency, they need people that can't take care of themselves, they need a bunch of people who will listen when they are told by liberals that they can't take care of themselves, they don't have what it takes, that they are victims, they're victims of discrimination, that they are victims of multiculturalism, they are victims of racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, whatever.
A liberal will find any reason to make anybody a victim.
But they may be running out of victims because our economy is reducing victims.
And this is where Samuelson's column comes in.
Uh he talks about the success of the economy and how more and more people are doing better, and they're finding out that the free market system is a much better way for them to advance in life and to sit around and wait for some sort of program or handout or assistance from some government agency.
Well, liberals need victims, and our economy is reducing the number of victims.
The liberals need victims.
They need poverty figures.
They need high poverty, they need numbers of people with no health care.
They need hungry children.
They need a number of people who have no job.
Liberals need people victimized by this unfair capitalistic society.
And if the economy and the free market system are taking away from liberals the number of victims, they got to get some more.
Because those victims become voters.
If they can be truly made victims.
Well, you got a ready-made group pouring into the country in record numbers.
Whatever the number is now, 12 million, 20 million, whatever.
The liberals look at them as future victims.
Potential victims, people we can make victims.
These are the people that won't have health insurance, it'll need us.
These are the people that we can say don't have jobs, legitimate jobs that need us.
These are people that we can say don't have educational opportunities and need us.
These are people that don't have health care, never will have health care and need us.
These are people who are never going to have a car, never have anything.
These are people gonna be victimized by racism and bigotry.
So it's a ready-made replacement victim population.
And there's no no uh no desire for any assimilation here.
The liberals are proud for there to be a gorgeous mosaic, as they call it out there.
They the last thing they want is assimilation.
Because when emigrants assimilate, they become part of the great American culture.
And uh when that happens, they learn how to advance in the great American culture, and soon sooner or later they will not be victims.
And liberals need victims.
And the United States economy is reducing the number of them.
Without victims, without people that Democrats and liberals can tell are victims.
There will be no need for liberals.
And since they can't have that, they need victims.
Hello, illegal immigration.
Back in a second.
And back to the phones to Flinton, Michigan.
This is Nick.
Uh Nick, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Greetings from Flint, Michigan.
Um I just wanted you to clarify something.
Uh in regards to the last call.
Um, my thoughts are that in an infusion of any kind of capitalism is going to be have the same results as you know, if if you're trading with China or if you're opening up a factory in you know Panama.
Right.
I think you're gonna achieve the same end.
I just I just wanted your thoughts on that.
Well, uh, let's let's retrace our steps, uh shall we, and uh refresh in people's minds the subject of the last call, a caller called and wanted to know why it's okay for the United States to trade with countries like China and Latin American countries which engage in slave labor.
But if he wanted to open a factory down in Latin America somewhere and uh and paid low wages, uh they'd come get him and say, You can't do that.
This is your you're you're discriminating against people, you're destroying their lives, you're you're you're exploiting them and so forth and so on.
I said, Well, it's o it's it's one thing for governments to do it, but uh uh because they have stated goals and interests, but it's not okay for the individuals like you to profit from it because you end up exploiting.
It's okay for the local governments to exploit their people, but not you.
You can't go do it.
I said, but don't worry about that.
Just hire some illegal immigrants and pay them very little.
Uh that's that's the way we're dealing with it here.
Now, what did you misunderstand about what I said?
No, I just thought that you're acknowledging that there's a difference between the two, you know, and I just didn't think that there was.
No, no, I'm just I'm just explaining to him.
I was just trying to answer his question, because it he's right.
I mean, if if if you look at look at Kathy Lee Gifford got into problems when she had her clothing line and it was learned that she was using slave labor or the people that she was um uh hiring to make her clothing line, and we was for Kmart that they were engaging in slave labor, and she and her husband uh had to go down someplace in Manhattan and literally hand out cash to handle the PR problems.
Nike has gotten into a lot of PR problems because they uh they have slave labor shops making their shoes.
It was said overseas in the Pacific Rim for like uh ninety cents an hour.
The shoes ended up costing two bucks, they sell them for two hundred and fifty.
So there there are PR problems with it when an American company tries it, when an American when when when the government supports it or or endorses trade with the nation that engages in it, they seem to be able to do it with an impunity.
This guy was just wondering why in the world it's it's not okay for others to do it too, under your premise that if you're going down to an oppressed state and you're offering people work who otherwise wouldn't have it, and they're getting entry label uh and entry level jobs as opposed to no jobs at all, and they're learning capitalism, being exposed to these kinds of what's wrong with it.
And I was simply trying to answer his question.
Oh, I see.
No, because I was just gonna make that same argument, so never mind.
Well, see, that's I'm I'm we're on the same page of this, Nyan.
I I uh anticipated uh uh that that's what your problem with it was, but no, I'm I'm all for sweatshops.
Uh Roger in San Francisco.
Hey, Roger, this is our old buddy the communist from Eastern Airlines.
Absolutely.
You know what?
It's about time that you had the courage to uh face up to me.
You're a xenophobe, and shame on you for saying uh uh the you uh that the communists are bad people, you know, because they're bringing the economy around.
And you know what?
You have to take a time.
Roger, they're they're not bringing the economy around.
I'm not a xenophobe, and I'm not afraid of you.
They're not bringing the economy around.
We're bringing their economy around.
Well, it works together, Rush.
Because you know, you you know, I have to laugh at you.
You know, you you drive me so crazy.
I I love you.
You know, you're my brother, you know, but you drive me crazy sometimes.
Uh, because you you don't state the truth.
And you know, one thing that you did uh the other week, let me just uh digress.
You're making a bunch of wild accusations here.
Yeah, okay.
Well I don't state the truth.
When what what did I not state the truth about it?
Well, what?
Oh, uh uh just about everything, because I listened to Al Franken, and then he he has uh and uh w one thing I want to say uh you were on a golf tournament.
I'll tell you what, you've got your wife.
What's it like for you to wake up every day if that's the exciting portion of your day?
That's it.
No, Rush, listen this one.
I feel for you, my brother.
I I really do.
I have great compassion for you, but you communists I guess find things in common.
No, you were on a golf tournament, and Mark Luther, who is uh they they call him the dittohead on uh Air America, and you were you were not kind to him from what he said, and and he's he loves you.
Uh he asked you to sign a book.
And then he said that you were very unkind to him.
But uh and he's uh did do you know who I'm talking about?
No, I I really don't.
I'm sorry.
I'm I'm I'm clueless and I'm in the dark on this.
No, the guy guy is his name is Mark Luther.
They call him the dittohead.
He's on uh uh Air America, he's a uh friend of Al Franken, but you know uh you know it's I I've uh it's nice to meet their listener.
Uh uh there were rumors they had one and you're it.
Well no, no, no.
Uh well what I'm saying is uh, you know, you should be more kind to you know uh the uh you know the the people that even like you, you know, you kind of dismiss them because you know what?
You're a multi, multi, multi-gazillionaire.
And you lost touch with the average person.
Yeah, well, you know, Roger, I think there's a lot of people who have run into me a lot of years who have no clue what you're talking about, as I don't, in terms of the last thing I am is dismissive or mean or whatever your allegation is uh when when I'm in public, uh it's it's just the exact uh this is this is this is absurd.
Uh and I am a brother of no communist.
Uh Rob in Stonington, Maine, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh listen, I think the uh predicament we're in with the Chinese is in a lot of ways similar to the predicament we had with South Africa uh back uh and it continued through the Reagan administration.
And uh and it was a dilemma then, and I really trusted Reagan a lot, and he was in favor of I think it maybe it was called constructive engagement or something.
And he was in favor of maintaining full economic relations with South Africa and and full uh diplomatic relations, and and there was a uh a policy called the Sullivan Principles that uh corporations uh adopted to do business in South Africa, because I certainly felt apartheid was a disgusting thing, uh, but the companies who followed the Sullivan principles refused to uh discriminate against blacks and things like that in their in their policies.
Um but then I believe uh it went pretty far.
The left wing uh through Congress, I guess, started isolating South Africa, uh, which was against what Reagan wanted, and we did boycotts and isolation and we got No, it was disinvestment all over the place.
Universities and corporations and uh liberals were in a race to see who could get out of there first.
Yeah, and so I but I I I and then apartheid ended.
So it's a little hard to know whether Reagan's policy would have succeeded if it had been allowed to continue, or were the were the libs right that finally when we did the boycott and disinvestment and that worked.
There's a big difference here uh and it's race.
It's it's skin color.
Um the American left will never ever advocate disinvestment from China on the same basis that they did in South Africa.
There were two things at work here with the left's effort at uh uh disinvestment and getting out of South Africa, and that was getting votes and shoring up and maintaining they got the votes of the uh black population in America.
That was first and foremost.
This is an issue made to order for Jesse Jackson.
It was allowed he was allowed to have prominence within the Democratic Party that's uh one of their constituent groups, and he sits at their their power of uh or table of power, and and so this was made to order and it it It had relevance to domestic politics.
And they can employ every race card that they use in this country in standing up for the immorality and the unjust treatment was going on in South Africa.
And and you're right, I mean the the uh the disinvestment did uh in addition to the immorality of apartheid.
I mean, that that that that kind of thing is not going to be sustainable over a long period of time anyway.
And when external pressure is allowed uh to penetrate, uh you know, the the immorality of that system alone was going to cause it to crumble.
This just hastened it along, but it'll never happen in China because there's no political gain in this country for demanding it and securing it.
There's nobody who could suggest that if we had practiced the same kind of dissent besides the South Africans didn't own a significant portion of our national debt that Chicoms do.
Uh South Africans did not have nuclear weapons.
Uh they weren't allied with the North Koreans, they weren't allied with the Iranians.
The whole the whole table is set entirely different.
So you think we should should handle the Chinese differently in South Africa?
We should not not be fully involved economically and diplomatically, or or something in between, or what?
No, I just think the reality is that we're not going to pull out of China.
There's not going to be a race to see who can get out of China the first uh and the soonest and the fastest.
Uh I I would argue that that Reagan's idea did work in the Soviet Union, and it probably would have continued to work in South Africa.
It wasn't going to up it wasn't going to change the balance of power, uh, but it would have led to increased economic circumstances.
It might have taken some time, but it took 70 years with the Soviet Union.
But eventually the Soviet Union figured out, and this was never really a big secret, it's just a bunch of leftists in this country didn't want to admit to it.
The Soviet Union could never keep up with us economically.
They were nothing but a third world nation with a first world military.
And they were a third world nation because all the resources went to the military and their defense system, and they were trying to establish little satellites around the world that they could use to launch and project power and to threaten to do so.
South Africa wasn't doing any of that.
South Africa had none of the alliances that the uh Soviet Union had or that China has.
Uh we are opening up China.
There's no question the look at the manufacturing base in China and look at the exports.
There's a there's a one of the items on discussion today between uh President Hu and uh President Bush was the trade imbalance.
And the Chinese came over and uh part of the arrival ceremony today was that a big deal uh by Boeing jets was announced earlier this week, uh big deal with Microsoft and their operating windows, and the Chinese have made some concessions here that they're gonna try to uh stop the piracy of uh intellectual property and art such as DVDs and CDs, uh computer software and and this sort of thing.
Now their people are still uh oppressed, but there are Chinese millionaires now.
There are Chinese with two and three homes, there are Chinese with mansions in there, not just in the government.
Uh and and uh you know, worldwide media is getting in.
The Chinese still they'll they'll block out what happened today when the Falun Gong protester shows up.
Uh their people will not allow uh will not be allowed to see their leader being protested.
I guarantee you they didn't see it, folks.
For one thing it's on a delay over there, and then when the when this starts, the screens just go black.
Uh but uh if you uh talk to people who do business in China and go there routinely, and I've I did in fact I just had dinner with somebody who's uh establishing huge businesses in China that will c that that specifically focus on entrepreneurs, uh and they're eager for it, and they're snapping up these opportunities, those that can.
Uh Walmart is indeed gonna build huge warehouses over there.
They're gonna open massive numbers of stores over there.
It is a burgeoning market.
The Chinese are uh are welcoming it.
And the same thing that's happening there did happen to the Soviets is gonna happen there eventually.
It's just gonna take a lot longer because this is a still a very oppressive regime, and there's still uh a billion people over there, and and and that's that's that's uh gonna take a lot of time to permeate for external forces to permeate.
But you can't mix totalitarianism and freedom.
At some point, one has to give.
And if the economics improve such that the country is doing well, totalitarianism is gonna fall of its own weight and of its own immorality.
That is why totalitarian regimes around the world do not let things happen inside their borders as are happening in China.
But they've got that they're they're they're forces that despite what you think they can't control, and they do that's why they have alliances with uh the North Koreans.
And that's why they have alliances with the with uh uh Iran, and why they will occasionally join with Russia at the Security Council of veto U.S. interests.
You know, it's it's it's it's how they maintain their independence and uh and and try to you know prevent uh and it's why they keep raising the Taiwan flag.
I don't know when it's all gonna happen, but I can we're we're at a point now we could not pull out of China, and there's nobody that's gonna advocate that we do, because the circumstances that exist there have no bearing and nothing in common with what was going on in South Africa at the time of apartheid.
Back in just a sec.
Okay, time to go to the audio sound bites, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Ted Kennedy today on the Today Show.
First bite, uh, Katie Corey says Carl Rove will not be focused so much on domestic policy, and in fact, we'll be focused more on the midterm elections, which Mary Madeline talked about earlier in the program.
How concerned should Republicans be in your view about these upcoming elections?
The principal concern that you'd have that I have with the Carl Rove is that he has really been the architect of the politics of fear.
We had a terrible uh tragedy in 9-11.
Stop the tape.
Senator Kennedy, we did not have a tragedy.
It was an act of war.
It was an attack, Senator.
It wasn't a tragedy, in the sense you mean it.
...here in this country, but that has been the dominant policy of the Republican leadership in the Congress and outside.
Is the politics of fear?
And if you look back historically, where uh other presidents faced a challenge as President Kennedy of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Frank of Roosevelt in World War II, Abraham Lincoln, they brought the country together to the challenges, and this has been an administration that's practiced the politics of fear and separation and division, and that has been destructive in American politics.
Uh these guys uh yeah, what we have here is projection.
This is where you accuse the other guys of doing what you do and and and try to pretend that what you're doing is not what you're doing.
Up next, Katie says it seems to me the Democratic and by the way, one thing about Rove.
I I think people, and I alluded to this yesterday.
Everybody's misunderstanding what's happening with Rove.
Rove is just going back to doing what he was doing.
He's not abandoning policy.
He's uh he's uh he's abandoning an official position.
I'll bet this job that he had required office time and paperwork and position papers and policy and all that, the kind of bureaucratic thing that bogs a creative guy like Rove down.
I think he's just going back to where he's most effective and where he can be uh the the most efficient.
It's not a demotion at all.
And these guys are mischaracterizing this like uh like I just I knew they would.
Question uh it seems to me the Democratic Party's done a miserable job of communicating its vision and offering any kind of alternative, Katie said to Senator Kennedy.
We were the ones that uh brought higher education, the Medicare programs, the Medicaid uh programs knocked down the walls of discrimination.
We brought a sound uh economy, a sensible foreign policy.
That is what we're going to do uh when we get back in power.
The best way to find out about what a party will do is what it that it has done.
And in each and every uh area uh that we have uh acted on, this country has been made a fairer and a more just nation.
Yeah, and it's been wrecked.
It hasn't been fairer, and it hasn't been more just, and isn't this great?
What is your vision for the future?
We're gonna do what we've done in the past, and if you look it all up, it's failed.
But don't look at the results, look at our good intentions.
You're never supposed to judge us on results.
Look at our intentions.
We wanted to bring fairness, we wanted to bring a just society, we want to bring all this other rot gut, but it all failed.
In fact, Democrat solutions just create new problems and exacerbate uh current problems.
One final question, she says, let me ask your book.
You talk about the things that need to be done, Senator.
Are they doable?
Americans do well when they're challenged and they're together.
But that isn't what's being asked now.
It's appeal to agreed, it's appeal uh to uh I can make it, it doesn't make much difference.
The ownership society, I've got mine, it's too bad if you don't have yours.
Interesting from a guy who's inherited what he has.
Here you have it.
I mean, if you want to know what the Democrats are gonna do, he just ripped the ownership society, entrepreneurism, the I can do it, the I can make it.
He doesn't think that's possible.
He wants you to be a victim with no hope.
By the way, uh, folks, let me one one thing about South Africa today.
We may have busted up apartheid, but that that country is a mess.
And make no mistake about it, it's not an argument that the disinvestment uh was the way to go in in South Africa.
That country is not what it was economically for most people.
▲
Export Selection