Rush Limbaugh Program - December 29, 2006, Friday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

27:03

December 29, 2006, Friday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Uh that's right, uh ladies and gentlemen, it is Walter Williams, and you can be on with us by calling 1-800-282-2882.
	And last time I kind of teased the uh the subject for this hour, and we're gonna talk about several things this hour.
	And uh one has to do with this big trans uh trans fat uh uh hullabaloo, and New York has already uh uh placed limits on the restaurants use of uh trans fats and uh probably other cities are going to follow.
	Now the um the American Council on Science and Health, and you can go to their website and read it, and they just point out that there's a lot of panic being created about the effect of trans fats on cardiovascular health.
	That means the health of the heart and the uh circulatory system.
	And um and and one of the risks is that, well, if you get rid of uh banned restaurants' use of trans fat, well, what are they going to substitute?
	Well, they might substitute some saturated fats, and that will be even more unhealthy than trans fats.
	But a more critical issue is what right does the government have in making these edicts uh to a restaurant?
	Uh maybe the restaurant uh should maybe say on the menu, maybe, I'm not even sure about this, while we're serving trans fats.
	Um and as I said in the last hour, there's a movement to outlaw the sales of uh fragras, and because uh the way that they uh uh way that far fragras is produced, uh they feed uh ducks or geese or whatever animal they use,
	they uh uh inordinate amounts of food that makes their liver very fat and and unhealthy, and uh that's what uh fragra is made out of, and they and some of the people pushing this, they call it cruelty uh to animals.
	Uh but at the heart, or the maybe stimulus for all these controls goes back to the movement against smoking and smoking in restaurants, and the bogus claims by the EPA about uh the uh people dying from secondhand smoke.
	Now, how the EPA did this study, the way they did the study, a graduate student at uh or uh uh uh writing a PhD, writing a distation, he'd be dismissed from college uh from uh if he used any of the techniques that the EPA used in reaching its conclusions about the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke.
	Now, first of all, I know smoke irritates people, and I know that it uh uh it stinks.
	Uh a lot of people think that it's thinks that it uh stinks.
	But so they should uh they should have made their campaign on that, which I don't that I doubt whether they would be successful, but they had to tie it to a health issue.
	Now the way the EPA did his study, in most uh statistical studies, uh you want a a 99% level of confidence.
	Well, the EPA uh tried that and they didn't get the output the um the uh the result that they wanted.
	Then they went to 95% and then to 90%.
	And anybody doing a study and doing that, uh, you know, manipulating figures like that uh would uh would be deemed uh as intellectually dishonest.
	And matter of fact, for those of you who are interested, uh you can just check out the British Medical Journal, and it's the largest single study of uh the connection between passive smoking and mortality, and it's a 39-year analysis over 35,000 car uh Californians, and it was published in the British Medical Journal, and it found no connection between passive smoking and mortality.
	And I believe the uh World Health Organization did a similar study, and they reached the same conclusion.
	Now, whether whether cigarette smoke bothers anybody or causes harm to anybody, that is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
	That is, it's an issue of private property rights.
	That is, maybe if if I'm a restaurant owner, if I'm a restaurant owner who wishes smoking in this restaurant, then maybe I I put up a sign and I say this restaurant permits smoking, and let you decide whether you want to come in under those conditions.
	Similarly, a restaurant owner who does not want smoking, he put out a sign, no smoking, and then I decide whether I want to enter the restaurant under those conditions.
	Those are the liberty liberty-oriented ways of handling the issue, as opposed to wanting people using the political system to impose to forcibly impose their preferences on others.
	Now, here's a question I haven't had adequately answered.
	Let's say that you hate smoking, you own a restaurant, and let's say a bunch of smokers go to the city council and they're able to use their political power to force you to permit smoking in your restaurant.
	How would you view that?
	You'd probably view it as tyranny.
	Well, it works the same way on the other foot.
	That is, uh a guy who wants to permit smoking and people are able to use the political mechanism to force him not to permit smoking.
	Well, that's tyranny the same, just the same.
	But see, most Americans, and it's sad for me to say this as an American with our heritage of liberty, that most Americans feel that it's somehow justified if they have a majority to be able to use the political system to impose their preferences on other people.
	And I think that that is hostile to the notions of liberty.
	Then, see what what happens after that, you establish a template, and the people who are trying to stop the use of trans fat in restaurants, they are using the template of the anti-smoking campaign.
	It worked for the uh anti-smokers, well, why not work for the anti-trans fat people or the um or the people who are against uh the serving of fragras.
	See, once you let po the politicians know that uh they have the right to control your lives, I don't think they're just gonna stop at smoking in restaurants, trans fat uh in restaurants or far gras.
	They're gonna go further, because I have yet to come across a tyrant in history that wakes up one morning and says, I'm tired of tyrannizing people, and I'm going to let them go free.
	I just know of no evidence of that.
	So, but you Americans, you believe, you believe that, or many believe, that Congress has the right to do anything upon which it can get a majority vote on.
	And that's a sad thing.
	That is because majority rule or a democracy was offensive to the founders of our nation.
	Just read some of the works by John Adams and others talking feeling how contemptible they were of the idea of a democracy, because a democracy is nothing but mob rule, or as uh I believe it was Madison who pointed out, James Madison, that it's just simply the tyranny of the majority.
	Um so anyway, um it it doesn't uh uh look great for the future of our country so long as we're we Americans are going to allow politicians Or allow people to use the political system to run roughshod over us.
	Now here's another uh issue in the news.
	It was in uh the Wall Street Journal today, and the title of it's called McCain Feingold in the Dock.
	And so anyway, the McCain Feingold uh uh campaign uh uh finance law uh says that well then uh it bans certain kinds of uh political ads in the 30 days before primary and sixty days before general election.
	Now it turned out that they uh that the anti-abortion group they ran television and radio spots, uh they were informing the public that uh certain U.S. senators were filibusing uh filibustering uh book uh President Bush's uh judicial uh nominees.
	And uh they also said that the people in Wisconsin should contact the uh uh their uh Democrat uh senators and congressmen to oppose them to uh to get them to oppose the uh filibuster.
	Anyway, they were taking the court for uh violation of the um uh McCain Feingold um reform uh for um campaign financing.
	Anyway, uh the uh the Supreme Court, it's likely that the Supreme Court is going to have a chance to review the uh McCain Feingold.
	I think that the McCain Feingold uh fine uh campaign finance uh reform law, I think it is offensive to the principles of free speech.
	Uh that saying that, well, gee, you can't use your money to promote free speech uh or or to promote your ideas.
	I think it's offensive.
	And I think I personally think that free speech is something that's absolute.
	That is, people have the right to uh express themselves.
	Now I know some of you are gonna call in and say, I know there's some uh lawyer types out there gonna call and say, well, I'm gonna save them a call.
	Well, uh you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.
	Well, that has nothing to do with free speech.
	That has uh something to do with violation of contracts.
	That is, when I go to a movie, I expect to see a movie uh, you know, I expect to see a movie.
	I paid my way.
	I don't expect to see it uh interrupted.
	Uh so that's what free that's what somebody hollering fire in a crowded theater would be doing.
	He'd be violating my right to a contract that uh that that I made with the uh theater company.
	Now, if there's owner who wishes smoking in his restaurant, then maybe I uh I put up a sign and I say this restaurant permits smoking, and let you decide whether you want to come in under those conditions.
	Similarly, a restaurant owner who does not want smoking, he put out a sign, no smoking, and then I decide whether I want to enter the restaurant under those conditions.
	Those are the liberty liberty-oriented ways of handling the issue, as opposed to wanting people using the political system to impose to forcibly impose their preferences on others.
	Now, here's a question I haven't had adequately answered.
	Let's say that you hate smoking, you own a restaurant, and let's say a bunch of smokers go to the city council, and uh they also said that the people in Wisconsin should contact the uh uh their uh Democrat uh senators and congressmen to oppose them to uh to get them to oppose the uh filibuster.
	Anyway, they were taking the court for uh violation of the um uh McCain Feingold um reform uh for um campaign financing.
	Anyway, uh the uh the Supreme Court, it's likely that the Supreme Court is going to have a chance to review the uh McCain Feingold.
	I think that the McCain Feingold uh campaign finance uh reform law, I think it is offensive to the principles of free speech.
	Uh that saying that, well, gee, you can't use your money to promote free speech uh or or to promote your ideas.
	I think it's offensive.
	And I think I personally think that free speech is something that's absolute.
	That is people have the right to uh express themselves.
	Now I know some of you are gonna call in and say, I know there's some uh lawyer types out there gonna call and say, Well, I'm gonna save them a call.
	Well, uh you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.
	Well, that has nothing to do with free speech.
	That has uh something to do with violation of contracts.
	That is, when I go to a movie, I expect to see a movie.
	Um, I expect to see a movie.
	I paid my way.
	I don't expect to see it uh interrupted.
	Uh so that's what free that's what somebody hollering fire in a crowded theater would be doing, he'd be violating my right to a contract that uh that that I made with the uh theater company.
	Now if there's on on the on the marquee, when you're getting ready to go into theater, if there's a sign saying during the show, somebody's gonna holler fire.
	Well well that would that would be okay.
	That'd be okay because I go in there, I know that somebody's gonna holler fire and maybe uh the uh performance will be disrupted.
	And as a matter of fact, there's some controversy a couple years ago because I said that I think free speech even goes to libel and slander.
	That is, I don't think that people should be prosecuted for libel and slander.
	And so a lot of people say, well, libel and slander hurts somebody's reputation.
	Well, who does your reputation belong to?
	Does your reputation belong to you?
	No, it doesn't.
	That is what others think of you is not your property.
	And so I have the right to say anything I want.
	I should have the right, of course, the law does not allow me.
	We'll be back with your calls after this.
	Um I'm totally in agreement, you know, being my age right now, if I had the ability to sell my kidney and make a little bit of money, of course I would love to do that, but um I'm pretty sure that in other countries, organ selling is a big problem on the black market.
	And uh I think it's one thing if you you you own your car and somebody somebody comes up and steals your car, you lose your car, that's it, and uh it's gone forever.
	Or, you know, or they find it.
	But with something like an organ, if you've got that and you're able to sell it, there's a big chance I think that you could have an underground black market that opens up and you're walking down the alley, you get taken to the side and then you lose a kidney and you're not getting that thing back.
	Well, look, I I I've heard that kind of uh uh uh uh criticism before.
	And are you saying that if there's a practice and there's a chance of illegal use or illegal i illegal illegality that we should eliminate the practice?
	That is for for you know, for example, um let's say some uh some doctors or or let's say some grocery stores uh they can they can sell rotten meat.
	Well, just because some grocer will sell rotten meat, does that mean that uh you have to stop the sales of meat?
	No, no, no.
	No, no, you that is you prosecute the people who are behaving illegally, that is uh the people who are stealing organs who are killing people to get organs, you prosecute them.
	That is you don't you don't uh eliminate something I think is uh very very valuable.
	No, and I agree, and I and that was my other point was to say that I think maybe at this time in the present we might not be there as far as being able to to to implement something like that, but I think maybe in the future when we can have our DNA and be able to go in and say I I'm will I want to give you know I want to sell my organ and they can match that kidney to you and say, okay, this is this person's organ, then you can go ahead and get into something like that.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely right.
	And I think that in the case of somebody who is uh terminal terminally ill, uh who's uh uh brain dead, uh that is and he's in the hospital, then there's not much of a problem there.
	That is their doctors and their officials there, and you ask the next of kin, can you harvest his organs?
	And I think that uh the next kin would be far more willing to uh donate the organs or sell the organs if there was a price for it.
	Uh matter of fact, I was uh I was talking to my doctor, he's an internist, and he you know, for years he told he tells me, uh uh Walter, you're in perfect help, but you should stop smoking.
	And so I asked him, I said, Does it make sense to put pink lungs into the ground?
	Now I said now, if my lungs could become a part of my estate, I would take better care of them.
	The optimal way to die is with everything wrong with you.
	That is, it's just like uh the optimal way optimal bank account to have when you die is zero.
	It's the same thing with your body.
	You should die with nothing left.
	We'll be back.
	The last half hour of the year.
	And we're still pushing back.
	We're still enthusiastic that we can uh sell our fellow Americans on uh liberty.
	You know, one of the issues in the news right now is the minimum wage.
	And the uh Congress is talking about the Democrats saying, well, first as soon as they get in, they want to raise the minimum wage from f five fifteen five fifteen an hour, I don't know, uh maybe seven something an hour.
	Well, late ladies and gentlemen, and the Republicans will probably go along with it.
	And for a good reason, I think, and which I'll get back to just a second.
	Um, the the intentions for the most part behind support for higher minimum wage, I think are very good.
	That is, people want to see their fellow workers uh earn a little more money.
	But the effects of the minimum wage are harmful for a large segment of uh of uh of workers.
	And those workers are low skilled workers, and you see the effect of a minimum wage.
	If you say, look, no matter whom you hire, you tell an employer, no matter whom you hire, you must pay him five fifteen an hour plus their mandated fringes.
	Uh you have to pay Social Security and you have to pay uh um uh workmen's compensation, unemployment compensation, things like this.
	And a lot of people say that's about a third of uh of the hour they pay.
	But let's stick with 515 for simplicity.
	Okay.
	No matter whom you hire, you must pay them $5.15 an hour.
	You're an employer now.
	So I ask you if you must pay $5.15 an hour no matter whom you hire, will you hire that worker who is so unfortunate so as to have skills that will only enable him to produce, say, three dollars worth of value per hour.
	No, you wouldn't.
	Uh so the effect of the minimum wage is to discriminate against the emplo the employment of the lowest skilled workers.
	And there have been a couple uh two important uh surveys by academic economists, and they're reported in the American Economic Review, one in uh one in uh 1979 and 1992, and 90% of academic economists agree that increasing the minimum wages cause unemployment among youth and low-skilled workers,
	and if you look at the unemployment statistics, you find that the youth unemployment is some multiple of the adult unemployment rate.
	And then there's another aspect of the minimum wage law that people don't pay a lot of attention to, or people are just completely ignorant of it, and that is the minimum wage law contributes or lowers the cost of engaging in racial discrimination by employers.
	And a kind of classic case of this was a study I did a number of years ago, and it's called it's actually turned into a book, uh, and title of the book is South Africa's War Against Uh Capitalism.
	And let me just read and and in South Africa, the major supporters of minimum of increases in the minimum wage law in South Africa they call it the rate for the job is the same as the minimum wage.
	The major supporters of increases in minimum wage laws uh were racist unions who would never have a black as a member of their union.
	And what was their stated purpose?
	Well, let me just read a quote by one of the union officials, and it's uh Gertke, uh, he was the secretary of uh South Africa's building workers' union.
	Correct, once he's a great honor to gain your audience uh with you today, and uh I'm genuflecting right now, but this is radio, so you can't see it.
	Okay.
	Uh quick comment before I get to my question is that the next time you sub for Rush, I'd like to hear you debate that goofy Lou Dobbs about outsourcing and all that other stuff he whines and cries about on his program.
	Well, he's beyond the pale.
	And I'm not I'm never going to convince him, but I'm going to try to convince the American people through my uh syndicated columns that he is absolutely wrong.
	Well, you can demonstrate to the audience as well.
	Okay, yeah.
	Well, what I'm really here to uh uh uh inquire about is the process by which you were declared the leader of all the white people, and who will succeed you in the unfortunate event of your untimely demise, and I'll hang up with the well, there's even a question about my demise.
	Um and and probably my daughter, uh she will probably uh be my follower, but anyway, uh you asked, how did I become the the white leader?
	Well, it's kind of a self-appointed uh position.
	Uh Ruff Rush uh he appointed himself as the black leader, and so I said, Well, I might as be the white leader.
	And what I've done as the uh leader of white people, I have an amnesty and pardon for giving all white people, all pe actually it's all people of European ancestry, for both their own grievances and those of their forebears against my people.
	And the reason why I've created this matter of fact, you can go to my website, Walty Williams.com and click on gifts, and there it is.
	Um the reason why I did this is because a lot of white people uh they feel guilty about slavery.
	And so the reason why I created this amnesty and pardon was so that you stop feeling guilty and stop acting like damn fools.
	That is uh uh, you know, uh a lot of white people will accept behavior uh uh of blacks from blacks that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites, and a lot and and the reason is that they feel guilty.
	And so anyway, I became the white leader uh because I wanted to uh you know provide leadership because white people lean need leadership as well.
	And yeah and matter of fact, one interesting thing about this leadership business, I've asked myself, you know, when people talk about black leaders, I say, Who's the Chinese leader?
	Who's the Irish leader?
	I couldn't come up with the names.
	Uh who's the Armenian leader?
	I couldn't come up with any names, and so I said, what kind of assumptions must one make about blacks to say that we alone need leaders?
	And I find those assumptions as a black man somewhat embarrassing.
	But however, getting back to your question, how did I become the white leader I appointed myself?
	And I think many white people are happy that I'm leading them and will be back with your calls after this.
	University.
	That is more conservative in nature.
	Well, I actually I have a colleague who's done a lot of research and I've relied on a lot of his search.
	His uh name is uh Professor Dan Klein, and you can go to his website, and he's done uh a number of studies in conjunction with uh another colleague, and I can't think of uh the colleague's name, uh she's uh I think uh from uh Sweden, uh pointing out the the open bias and the lack of uh intellectual or ideological uh diversity on college campuses,
	and he shows that at many college campuses, up to ninety percent of the professors in some departments and some cases a hundred percent of the professors in some department, uh they according to surveys that he's done, they vote uh democratic.
	Uh they and so and so the uh so and so the thrust, the thrust of the college uh campuses uh is uh is left wing professors who use their classes to indoctrinate, they use their classes of proselytize students, which I think is academic dishonesty.
	Uh in i uh you can I've been teaching for thirty-seven years, and you and I would challenge anyone to find any s previous student of mine who can say that I taught something in class other than microeconomics.
	That is, I think that uh to the kind of opinions I express on the Rush Show and in my s uh syndicated columns, they're never expressed in class because these are my opinions and it is academic dishonesty to try to sell students or to pr or to to to use your opinions in class.
	And uh now students a student might ask me about something I write wrote on the column, and I'll say, Well, see me after class or come during my office hours because that's not the topic of discussion.

▲