Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Man, oh man, a cold front has moved through here.
65 degrees here right now, on the way up to about 70.
Everybody's all bundled up like you can't believe it walking around out there.
Wusses.
Well, I got a mock turtleneck on today.
I mean, it's my recognition.
It's a little chilly out there.
Greetings.
People right now where it's 20 degrees.
Wusses, 70 degrees is a high temperature, and they're complaining about it.
Anyway, great to have you, folks.
Here we are.
A short week on the EIB network this week for me.
I'll be here today and tomorrow.
Then off the balance of the week, I'm having around 50 members of the extended family in for the Thanksgiving weekend.
They start arriving tomorrow night and then on Wednesday.
And it's going to be interesting.
Yes, there's going to be a lot of love, ladies and gentlemen.
Got to be a lot of love.
Who sang that, Snerdley?
Remember that?
Nicolette Larson back in the 1970s.
Who we got on Wednesday?
I know we'll do a best of on Thursday.
Mullah Hedgecock will be here on Wednesday, guest hosting once again.
Anyway, here's the telephone number.
If you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I have been swamped over the weekend with email from subscribers at rushlimbaugh.com.
When are you going to make your Warner Theater appearance in Washington last week?
A podcast and downloadable MP3 file so that I can take it with me and listen on the go.
I don't have time to sit in front of the computer for two hours.
Boy, if you can't do that, you couldn't do this job.
Two hours in front of the computer per day would be a vacation to me.
Nevertheless, it has happened, ladies and gentlemen, because of popular demand.
We're going to make the audio of the Rush to Excellence appearance last Thursday in Washington an MP3 file downloadable from the website.
Also, it'll be a podcast automatically fed if you've signed up for this as a subscriber.
So what you need to look for is in your automatic delivery today, look for two extra files, and that will be the podcast.
Now, people also wonder, well, when are you going to put the video?
I haven't seen the video.
Ladies and gentlemen, frankly, I've seen some of the still pictures, and I don't like them much.
I picked the best of what we had, but I'm not that crazy about them, and they're all the same shot, basically.
Well, from the same angle and so forth.
There aren't any crowd shots in it.
I don't know what the video looks like.
And until I see the video or talk to some people who have, I don't know what we're going to do.
We've got it.
And when we went to New York and did this, we put it on a DVD.
I don't know yet what we're going to do with this.
We're not scheduled to get it anyway until early this week, so it's not running behind.
But it, well, wait, we may have it.
I think the objective is to at least put the video as a streaming video file on the website.
As to what else we do with it, I don't know.
And I won't know until I see it.
All right.
Lots of exciting stuff.
This is just hilarious.
Headline today in the Washington Times.
Hoyer seeks protection for his supporters.
It made me wonder, have we elected to mafia to run the House of Representatives?
Are there going to be horseheads all over the place?
Not in people's beds, but in their offices.
Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer acknowledged yesterday that he was seeking assurances from presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would not retaliate against his supporters after he won the number two House leadership post.
Hoyer said there's no bad blood between him and Pelosi.
We're going to talk about, in fact, they had a meeting today.
And it's just funny.
You know, when the president has people to the White House, foreign leaders or what have you, or anything else, the video is released and the cable networks play it, video just in.
And it's the president talking to whoever.
We got the same thing today when Hoyer and Pelosi had their meeting.
This Justin, latest video, as though it was earthshaking.
And it is to the people in the drive-by media.
This is the biggest thing that's happened to them in 12 years.
I think, including Clinton's election.
Maybe the first couple of days of Clinton's election, they were all giddy and hot to trot.
But this is just over the top, the way they are treating the leadership in the House of Representatives in the Senate here.
There almost may as well not even be a presidency, even now.
We've just constitutionally dispatched it.
Bush is irrelevant.
The whole office is irrelevant.
We may as well close and lock the White House.
Nothing going to be coming out of there of any significance in the next two years.
It's all happening in Speaker Pelosi's office.
But what this means, ladies and gentlemen, is that everybody up there is worried that she's going to run this place on the basis of personal vendetta.
She's still hot to trot to put Al C. Hastings up there in charge of the intelligence committee.
And I've got a story today of all the people that voted against him or voted for his impeachment when it came up when he was a federal judge.
Now, I've also always said, ladies and gentlemen, in the course of the many years of this Sterling broadcast that the liberals are more fun when they lose because that's when they're out of power, that's when they get kooky.
And I don't know.
I may have to revise that.
I think as they have their juggernaut, the Democrat juggernaut since they took over the House, isn't that what they always said about the Republicans?
They took it over.
They never won it.
They just took over.
Since the Democrats have won the House, some of the craziest, kooky things have happened.
And all of these wrangle in the draft about which we will talk more in a moment.
I'm still not sure he really wants to do it.
Well, I know he says so, but this is like the third time he's brought this up.
And I know he's bringing it up now because he thinks with the majority they can perhaps make it happen.
I think it's as much an anti-war statement as it is an effort to get the draft.
I think he's trying to discourage.
So I think what the Democrats would love is if they can make permanent the idea they think they've created now, that there's nothing worth defending as far as this country is concerned.
There's no reason to go to war.
There isn't any reason whatsoever.
And he is convinced that a, and he says some crazy things about it, which can be refuted factually and statistically, but the idea that when he talks about the people that are in the armed forces now, he continues to use the word force.
People are forced to go there.
It's disproportionately poor and black, and this is not true, particularly on the poor side.
And there's nobody being forced to go now.
It's all volunteer.
The draft is when you'd have people to be forced, and that's when the people wouldn't like it.
And that's what I think he's after.
But we'll discuss this in greater detail as the program unfolds along with your program.
But ladies and gentlemen, I remember when I was in Sacramento in 1984, 85, minding my own business out there, carving my future against long odds.
And all of a sudden, a gift was handed to me one day in the news.
I read about the global peace march for nuclear disarmament.
I think it was a global peace march.
Yeah, whatever.
It's a peace march.
A bunch of peacenicks were going to gather at various parts on the left coast, and they were going to march to Washington.
Actually, drove, but they call it a march.
And they stopped in the smallest towns they could find to conduct peaceful and civil disobedience and so forth.
And the objective was to get to Washington en masse, go to the steps of the energy department of all places and have a die-in.
And at the time of the die-in, they would imitate what would happen at the very moment of a nuclear detonation in Washington.
And they brought along red food coloring or whatever to replicate blood.
And they all just collapsed on the steps of the energy department.
That was the objective.
They didn't have too many, but it was still interesting to follow this.
It gave birth to our peace update with Slim Whitman.
Ladies and gentlemen, now that they've won power back, they are back.
New organization called what is this group called?
Well, talk about the couple, the two people that started this.
They live on a houseboat off the Marin County coast.
Names are Donna Sheehan, the anti-war activist Donna Sheehan and her partner, Paul Reffel, concocted a way for the world to communally create a peaceful situation, a lot of peaceful vibes.
They want everybody to have an orgasm on the same day.
On December 22nd, they're asking the world to contribute to the Global Orgasm for Peace.
Sheehan said not to worry if you don't have a partner.
Now, what is the acronym for Global Organism for Orgasm for Peace?
It's GOP.
So on December 22nd, we're all supposed to have an orgasm and not worry if we have a partner.
Here is the ad that they're running on their website.
Okay, planet Earth.
Here we are.
Nice enough place until you look closer and realize that we're almost constantly at war.
Stop taking.
I think he's sober.
There's these scientists.
No, these guys look way too hot to be scientists.
Okay, this guy looks like he hasn't seen much daylight.
So there's these scientists at Princeton University who've been working on this project to measure the general randomness present on the Earth at any given time.
And they have these devices called eggs positioned all around the earth to measure it.
Now, the same folks who brought you Bearing Witness, you know, the thing where the people laid down naked in the grass for peace.
Yeah, those people.
They had this idea.
What if everybody agreed to have an orgasm at the same time on the same day, all while thinking of peace?
Maybe these eggs would measure the change in global human consciousness.
And so on December 22nd, everybody who wants to can do whatever it is that gets them off.
And we'll check in with those scientists and see what happened.
Guy's dead serious, folks.
This could get ugly.
I mean, this could get ugly when you figure the kind of people who actually do this.
You've got to wonder if Clinton will show up and be part of it or even be the leader.
So what have we had here?
Orgasm for peace.
We've had the harmonic convergence.
This same bunch of nitwits gathered at the top of Mount Shasta back in the 80s and they wanted to recite the mantra.
I forget what the mantra was.
The joke mantra is omm.
And all this was supposed to send good vibes of peace all around the world to Gorbachev and Reagan.
Now, these are the people who are now empowered because of your votes on Election Day.
Anyway, a little long, quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll have comments.
And I just wanted to set the table here, but there's a lot more we've got to do on the program today, but I've got to take a break right now so we stay within the guides of the programming format.
Stay with us, folks.
We're all just talking among ourselves here, ladies and gentlemen, about well, I'm doing most of the talking.
Employees tend to clam up this kind of subject with the boss.
But I don't know about you, but during orgasms, I don't think about peace.
We've been discussing what we do think about.
This is not a discussion we are going to have on the program.
I'm just sharing with you what happened here during the break.
You have to understand something.
These people are serious.
You know, we sit and we laugh at this.
They are serious.
They think this kind of stuff matters.
This is how they are one of the ways they're going to bring tranquility to the world.
December 27th, a big O. Everybody gets involved here, and vibes for peace are sent all over the place.
In fact, the combination of high-energy orgasmic energy combined with mindful intention may have a much greater effect than previous mass meditations and prayers.
Who knows?
None of them ever have had any effect.
None of that ever has led to peace at all.
Meditation, harmonic convergences, mass anything, prayers doesn't lead to peace.
In fact, these people don't even know what they're talking about when they talk about peace.
One of the organizers, this Sheehan babe, Donna Sheehan, we wanted to make it during the cocktail hour, but since everybody's on a different time, then it would be harder for everybody to participate.
Come on, where's the effort here?
I mean, if you really want to do this and you want massive O's at the same time of day, how hard can it be for people to do it in the cocktail hour or whatever time zone it happens to be in their in their part of the world?
I mean, if it's cocktail hour in San Francisco when you do this, what's that?
Five to seven?
All right, that's going to be eight to ten on the East Coast.
I mean, is there a bad time to do an orgasm?
So, I mean, where's the commitment here?
I mean, they start out with this big O idea, and then they're already making allowances for people who don't want to participate when it has to happen.
I think the only thing that's going to make it work is if everybody who does this does it at the precise same time.
How else is this massive creation of cosmic high-energy energy going to manifest itself or even occur?
Well, I was just asked a question, ladies and gentlemen, if this could make the earth fall off its axis.
I doubt if Perot did that.
I don't think anything else could.
But you never know.
We're going to search the Slim Whitman Music Library to see if we have an update theme for this.
Was that a song?
Was there a song that went along with that?
And I know that that was a, you know, when they try to get all these, that's a good one to remember, too.
People, remember Hands Across America, folks were speculating if that might be an appropriate song here for the big O day on December 22nd.
All these people threatened to stand coast to coast, linking hands for peace.
And these are the people who elected Democrats.
Here's Aaron in Long Island.
Aaron, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
How are you doing, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
Never better.
Glad you called.
Yes.
My question is, if you are attempting to participate in the Global Orgasm for Peace and you are having difficulty achieving orgasm by thinking of peace, should you feel guilty?
No, you don't.
No, no, no.
The objective is not to be thinking peace.
It's that having an orgasm that will cause peace.
You still don't understand this.
Even though I have properly communicated this, you still don't get it.
It doesn't matter what you're thinking of.
They think that people will automatically think peace.
Who knows how it affects these people?
But I think, remember, there are no limits.
I mean, even if you don't have a partner, you should do this.
Well, of course you have to think.
By the way, Aaron, you're breathing awfully heavy.
I'm actually while I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
It's a good thing I've got a court reporter here transcribing you because that's the only reason I know what you're saying.
So what's going on out there with you?
A little windy.
Apologies.
See, I didn't understand that.
A little windy?
Oh, you're a riot rush.
By the, by the, by the.
By the way, we have to check one thing, ladies and gentlemen, and we'll do this with the organizers.
Many people, as you know, fake orgasms.
And others do not know that it's happened.
So, oh, that's it.
That's the tune.
That's the tune, Come Together by the Beatles.
That's the theme song for the global, whatever.
I've already put it at the bottom of this.
The global orgasm for peace.
Yes.
Anyway, remember, we're going to check this too.
I don't know if faked orgasms count.
So, because there's all kinds of them.
Here is Tom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Tom.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
As one of the, I shouldn't say one of, as the big brain in talk radio, I think I've got a question about talk radio.
Ask a way.
What's the significance of the Clear Channel sale for talk radio?
And who are the people behind the buyout?
I don't know the people.
I don't even remember the name of the people.
The two equity fund partners.
All that's happened here is that Clear Channel has been taken private.
The operational setup of the company isn't going to change.
The Mays family will continue to run Clear Channel as they have since its inception.
They're going to sell some smaller market radio stations, but I don't think it's going to have any noticeable effect on talk radio at all.
I mean, radio, it's no different than any other business.
They'll continue to do what makes money and to serve various niche markets and a number of things.
It's just the sale itself.
These kind of things in the business, as it's common, they promote nervousness and uncertainty among employees, certain management types too.
I don't know what the future holds.
But formatically, as far as talk radio is concerned, I don't think it.
You're asking specifically about me, correct?
Well, I'm asking, well, I'm asking very generally because I don't know who the people are who led the buyout, and I just wonder whether this is George Soros and his pal or somebody who's actually a capitalist.
No, no.
In fact, one of the companies was founded by Mitt Romney, one of the two.
I don't think he's involved in it anymore.
But look, anything's possible.
Only time will tell.
I appreciate the question, but I wouldn't expect major changes.
What works works.
Yeah, baby.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have real anchor man of this country, Rush Limbaugh.
And the highly respected and sometimes feared excellence in broadcasting network.
All right, to the audio soundbites.
Friday morning, this past Friday morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Brian Lamb, the host, had this exchange with Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post.
How do you like the Rush Limbaugh term, drive-by media?
I'm not really sure what does he mean by that?
Mainstream media.
Oh, drive-by-media.
Oh, you know, everybody hates the mainstream media.
What would you guys do without us to, you know, have news that you could then use to make your own points?
We would love it, Ruth.
But you see, this is classic.
How many times have I defined drive-by media on this program?
How often do we use the term?
How many people know exactly what it is?
But yet, outside the universe of this program, it's almost as though this program doesn't exist.
You don't need a password.
You don't need a super secret receiver.
It's just a standard issue radio in any car, in any home.
If you have a clock there, there's probably a radio attached to it.
You just turn it on, hit the seek button, and you'll find the show four or five times in one scan.
But that, I think, is too difficult to do.
Here is, for those of you who are new and are not sure, what the drive-by media is defined as.
The mainstream media are just like drive-by shooters.
They pull up to a congested area.
They spray a hail of bullets into the crowd, causes mass hysteria, confusion, mistakes, misinterpretation.
Sometimes people in their careers actually die.
I mean, the examples of this are too numerous to mention.
The Hurricane Katrina aftermath is a great one that comes to mind.
But Mark Foley, drive-by media hit.
You come in, everything's going along fine.
People are coming.
You upset them.
You spray a bunch of misreports, misstated reports, factually erroneous news, spread it out all over the place, just cause general tizzy, and then drive off.
You laugh, the drive-by media smirks, they ride away, unnoticed in all the excitement.
They're never blamed or held accountable for what they get wrong or for the things that they stir up.
I mean, the whole Iraq war and the way it has been covered is a clear illustration of how the drive-by media operates.
In fact, these people in the drive-by media are lauded and held up as heroes, mostly by themselves.
Dan Rather and the forged documents trying to force Bush out of office, effective presidential race in 2004.
Perfect example, drive-by media hit with forged documents.
To this day, Rather still says the documents were not forged.
They were real.
Story was accurate, that nobody has proved his story is false.
And then after they hit and miss and fire and away and then pull on down the highway, everybody else is engaged in mopping up the mess that they caused, like us, trying to get facts out, report their errors and mistakes.
And in the meantime, they're flying on down the highway in a convertible with the top-down, laughing and looking for their next set of drive-by victims.
And this is repeated over and over and over.
And there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping them or their marauding ways.
Drive-by media is not just another term for the mainstream media.
It is a term designed to describe behavior, motivation, and impact on the world that they cover.
Scott in Ithaca, Michigan, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
A long time.
Second time caller.
Thank you.
The reason I'm calling is listening to you talk about this prayer for peace and so forth, the meditation, whatever you would like to call it.
I think you're being too dismissive of the fact that people will be focusing on the idea of peace, which I think all of us would like to see.
And I think you're a perfect example of why you might be dismissing that too quickly.
Well, okay.
I'll bite.
Why am I the perfect example of why I might be dismissing?
Now, wait a minute.
You understand what this is about.
This is global orgasms for peace.
You want to call defend this?
Well, I'm not going to defend that term and the idea, but I think focusing on peace and having things come to a concern.
Wait a minute, though.
We wouldn't even be talking about this today were it not for this group that their way of doing this.
They've tried all the other things.
They admit that they failed.
They want something more powerful, orgasms for peace.
So you hear this, well, I don't really want to talk about that, but I do want to talk about the other aspects of it.
I mean, you can.
Meditation and prayer for peace, like I said, whatever you want to call it, I think it's something good because it's focusing on the outcome that I think all of us would like to see happen.
And you're a very good example of that because I've heard you say numerous times on this show that you have always focused on what you want the end result to be.
You knew you were going to be successful.
That's what you focused and you thought about.
And I think that that has profound results for people if that's exactly what they do.
If they're thinking about sickness, if they're thinking about war, if they're thinking about things that they don't want to have happen in their lives, that's what their focus is on.
You focused on success in radio and other aspects of your life and what's happened.
You've had those successes and wealth and everything along with it.
You're missing a key ingredient here.
I have been focusing on my life.
I would never think, let's take the Iraq war.
I would never think that I and a number of others sitting at home meditating about it and hoping that it ends will bring it about.
We will have no effect on it at all.
We'll have no impact whatsoever on it.
It's nothing more than a feel-good exercise.
I think that you can have an impact on it from the standpoint of changing the direction of the focus.
Well, you can think that all you want, but I mean, just because you think it doesn't mean it's right.
I mean, I guess the liberals, I have a tough time relating to this because I'm such, I guess I'm too much a realist.
This just doesn't compute to me.
Well, like I said, you're the perfect example.
You can mind on the things that you want to have happen in your life, and that's what happens.
Yeah, they have it all happened, but many of them have, but it took effort, not just sitting around hoping, not just sitting around praying, not sitting around doing.
It took hoping, it took doing, it took a lot of action.
But everything begins with that thought, correct?
In an individual case, perhaps, yes.
But when you're talking about ending a war or ending all war and bringing about peace, the people you have to reach when you do this are the evil people of the world, the murderers, the thugs, and I just don't think this works against them.
I think they look at people who do that as easy marks.
Those people are, this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, not peace conferences in this country.
It always has been the case and always will be, by the way.
Well, I don't think you should make any mistake about it.
I've had experience with these people.
I've gone to school with several of them in a large group.
And make no mistake, they don't want to coexist with us.
They do want us dead or to conform to their way of life.
It's as simple as that.
Precisely.
But here's, let me throw another wrench into this.
I think one of the, you know, I had a conversation on Friday night with some people, and I was explaining to them the current, well, we were talking about the current makeup of the Democrats.
A lot of people just can't understand why anybody wants us to lose a war in Iraq or why anybody wants to grant terrorists constitutional rights, why anybody wants to weaken this country's ability to defend itself.
People just can't, Americans cannot understand the motivation behind that when they see other Americans that seem interested in the defeat of this country.
And I'm going to try to explain it to you the best I can.
Because it's these people who are going to have a global orgasm for peace.
What they're actually seeking is the defeat of the United States.
In their minds, it is us causing all these problems around the world.
They want us to lose.
We are too powerful.
They are overwhelmed with guilt.
They consider themselves enlightened citizens of the world.
That's why they all love the United Nations.
It's why they all love the Western European model of socialist democracy.
They think we're lagging behind.
We're Neanderthal.
We are archaic.
The true enlightened among us live otherwhere, other places on the planet.
And they want us to join that global network.
They want us to have the same lifestyles and the same governmental structures as these elites, who are about to lose their countries, by the way, for one of a number of different reasons, any one of a number of different reasons.
It's hard to understand.
It's hard to convey.
But they are true globalists in the sense that they think their country is the major problem in the world.
And so they want to gather.
All these peace marches for nuclear disarmament, we have a lot of fun laughing about them, and all these harmonic convergence things, and all these marches that we had this past year for illegal immigration.
All this is comprised of people who don't like this country, who want this country to lose, who want this country cut down a size or a peg or two.
And that's, if you understand that, it helps you to more easily put into some sort of context these silly things like a global orgasm for peace.
It's simply ridiculous.
All it is is a bunch of people who want us to stop being the marauders and the destroyers and the evil of the world.
You never hear these people talking about the atrocities committed by our enemies.
You never hear it.
They don't consider those atrocities to be atrocities because those people are the victims.
They're just innocent.
They were minding their own business in Mecca one day and all of a sudden bombs started raining down from United States B-52s and what have you.
We are the problem.
And people, it's tough to get people to understand this because it's, A, it's inexplicable.
Most people don't understand how any American could actively work and seek for his own country's demise or defeat.
And the second thing, and don't want to hear it even if it is true, makes you too uncomfortable.
Why would you want to hear that they're Americans like, I'll go about my business?
Another thing that people just ignore.
So when you talk about, you know, praying for peace and having meditation for peace and having all of this, I understand it as a feel-good exercise.
It's what much of liberalism is all about.
Liberalism exists for many reasons.
One reason is to make the people who are liberal feel good about themselves while they solve nothing.
They feel good because they are more enlightened than the rest of us to notice these problems.
I talked on this Thursday night at Washington.
Because I think, in all candor, folks, I think we conservatives need to get back to basics.
I look back on this campaign in the last two years of Republican leadership.
There hasn't been any conservatism in terms of philosophy accompanying any action that went on.
And it works every time it's tried.
That's how you get independence.
Conservatism discussed philosophically and then attached to policy is educational and informative.
Most people live their lives that way anyway.
That's how you get them back.
You have to keep teaching it once you win with it.
You never stop teaching it because there are always new people coming, and even the new people that have come and have learned it will forget it unless it is continually pounded into them and they are reminded of it.
I'll give you a couple of examples when I come back.
Thanks for the call out there.
Scott, we'll be back in mere moments.
Stay with me.
Okay.
Welcome back.
It's El Rushbos, serving humanity with talent on loan from God.
People struggle to define conservatism and liberalism, and you can make it as complicated as you want.
And you can take it to the nth degree if you want.
It's actually a little simpler than it appears.
At its root, what is life all about?
Life is about people.
And life is about relationships.
Nostalgia generally reminds you of your pleasant memories.
Very few people go back and have horrible thoughts about nostalgia.
You just have those in your nightmares or your dreams, unless you have some kind of problem and dwell on them.
But when your life is done and you look back at it, the things that you will remember that will have defined you and will have contributed to your happiness are the relationships you've had with people you've loved.
From family to friends to spouses to children to whoever.
That's what everybody will reflect on near the end of their lives.
Not what they acquired when, not when they scored their first touchdown.
Those things matter at the time and they're important at the time.
But when you reflect on things, that's generally what happens.
So people and working with and playing with and dealing with people and interacting with them is the fundamental behavioral aspect of humanity.
And everything descends from that.
Now, conservatism, people who are conservative will look at a culture and look at a society such as ours, and we will have the utmost faith in the individual.
We believe that the individual, when properly educated and informed, and by the way, unshackled, we believe the individual has the ability to triumph over whatever odds that individual faces.
We believe that extraordinary people are simply ordinary people doing extraordinary things.
The great among us never set out to be great.
They became great by virtue of accolades as a result of their achievements.
Liberals, on the other hand, look at the average American with condescension.
Don't think the average American has what it takes.
The average American is stupider than the liberal.
The average American doesn't have the ambition or the wherewithal to overcome these odds.
And besides, they make a victim out of everybody.
And they do this by saying, well, that black doesn't have a chance because of racism and white people.
The illegal doesn't have a chance because of the nativist and protectionist among us.
Women don't have a chance because of sexism and so forth.
And so the liberal mindset and construct of people is entirely negative.
It's condescending.
It is arrogant.
And it is almost hold people in contempt.
Conservatism is just the opposite.
Now, everything descends from that.
When liberals get power politically and start putting together policy, what's the policy going to be?
Empower government because those schlubs out there cannot live their lives properly, happily without us.
Senior citizens won't eat.
The poor won't get off the soup lines.
The only people that make it big are the rich.
And we've got to find a way to take away from them what they've worked for.
Conservatism, when it gets power and starts defining policy, you get things like welfare reform, which is rooted in the belief that people who work, which is where many people derive their identity, will experience achievement and pride, will be motivated to go even further.
And you can take this simple definition of conservatism versus liberalism and apply it to virtually any aspect in the political spectrum, and you'll see that it applies.
So it's not complicated at all to explain the difference.
This is what has been missing in Republican Party politics philosophically for way too many years and needs to return.
Back after this, my friends, stay with us.
Fastest three hours in media.
The first hour of this excursion into broadcast excellence is in the can, ladies and gentlemen.