All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:10
May 31, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I got everybody asking me.
I can't, I can't believe everybody's asking me what is when they call you the Mandarin of Conservative Talk Radio, what does that mean?
Does it mean that you're part Chinese?
I got even.
Major Garrett called me the Mandarin of Talk Radio on a Fox report about immigration last dust up with uh the White House.
Mandarin simply means in this context, all powerful figure, ladies and gentlemen.
Look it up.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Rush Limbaugh back in the EIB network and the fastest week in media rolls on.
Here we are already at Thursday.
It's great to have you with us.
The uh telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
On the docket today, Mrs. Clinton.
I'm going to build on the morning update today.
Fabulously received by the audience, by the way.
One of the uh most powerful and hard-hitting morning updates in uh in a long time.
That's saying something because they're all powerful and hard-hitting.
But uh this one struck a court, so we'll expand on it today.
Of course, we got the usual immigration stuff.
Uh and and we got pretty good lighthearted stack.
You uh you parents might want to start measuring the length of your kids' fingers out there.
I'll have details on this.
Finger length uh is relevant in a lot of things uh uh for children, and and uh we'll have the details for you.
Uh big news out of Iraq.
I can't, I can't believe that this is not generated more discussion.
A cease fire has been uh eyed, the headline says here, to stop the violence in Iraq, and it's the bad guys who are interested in the ceasefire.
I it's an associated press.
It's right here.
I got it off of Breitbart.com.
If you want to find out what the news is, you go to Breitbart.com.
Uh I know it hasn't been out there.
It cleared this morning at 1019, because I am on the case.
I see this stuff.
It hasn't been mentioned.
I'll tell you why, because the drive-bys and Harry Reed and Pelosi are busy trying to figure out how they're going to spin this.
I'll get to that in just a second.
But I got to share some of this.
This stupid news.
Los Angeles Times, once wayward humpback whales appear to be home free.
Now we had this story yesterday, of course.
Snerdly, you weren't here is out washing the car.
The whales in the Sacramento Delta, San Joaquin Delta, gave the rescuers the slip.
They got out of there under the cover of darkness.
And on yesterday morning I'm sitting here doing show prep, and they got cameras trained out there at the Golden Gate Bridge trying to find the whales.
Nobody knows where they went, but they're got out.
Uh and uh the the thing about this story that I just have to share with you.
There's a there's a quote here from uh some person named Sprett, yeah, Trevor Spradlin.
Uh yeah, we're still holding our breath a little bit, but we're just so pleased.
Uh Trevor Spradlin is a marine mammal biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, the uh federal agency that helped lead the rescue effort, but of course that's the agency that was befuddled and outsmarted by nature and the whales.
But listen to this guy's quote.
Armed with photos of the pair's distinctive tales.
Experts should be able to pick out the wayward duo as they migrate up the coast.
In the meantime, said Trevor Spradlin.
These whales have been fantastic ambassadors for the ocean.
Fantastic ambassadors for the What?
There are a couple of animals.
They ended up in the wrong place.
They found their way out.
Now they're great ambassadors for the ocean.
I just, you know, I I marvel.
I just I just continue to marvel at the way people look at things.
And by the way, Nancy Pelosi upset with fellow traveler Hugo Chavez for shutting down that opposition TV station.
Uh the speaker uh called on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to reconsider a shutdown of the country's most watched TV station, saying the move suppresses free speech.
Hey.
Uh, madam speaker, what Hugo Chavez Is doing by shutting down TV stations no different than what you want to do with the fairness doctrine uh here in the uh in the country.
I mean, what a day when your fellow traveler uh get like this gets out of line.
Uh wish she would have said as much when she went to visit Basher Assad that she's embarrassed.
She's embarrassed.
Hugo Chavez has embarrassed her to death, makes them look bad.
They have otherwise, why would she care?
All right.
Uh U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about ceasefires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence.
The number two American commander said today, that would be Lieutenant General Raymond O'Dirno said that he has authorized commanders to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders, and others in the country.
Uh that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts, and we are talking about ceasefires, maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.
Uh O'Derno made this in a video conference in Baghdad uh speaking to Pentagon reporters.
It's just the beginning.
We have a lot of work to do on this, but we've restructured ourselves to organize uh to work this issue.
Now, this this is a huge.
I mean, if if uh if if you're talking about if you're talking about a ceasefire here, uh uh this this is something that results from strength.
It is not something that results from weakness.
Now tell you what the Democrats are going to say.
I know how they're going to spend this.
Uh they're they're they're they're going to spin this as uh well, we're probably getting a statement from Dingy Harry, if if they even refer to this.
Uh, and they may not, since uh the drive-by's are doing their best here to keep this nor news story sequestered.
Uh but I think what uh Dingy Harry will say, well, this shows the weakness of the U.S. position.
We have to negotiate ceasefires with the enemy to stop our brave soldiers from being killed.
We can't defeat them, and this proves it.
That's what he'll say.
That's what they're trying to spin right now.
Uh and then, of course, somebody might add, and of course they will break the ceasefire.
Of course, Dingy Harry won't say that because our enemies are honorable.
Uh we are not.
But if Dingy Harry does say something like this, uh he's he is going to further go down the road of being a pathetic laughing stock.
I mean, it's when you negotiate from strength, that's the road to uh to victory.
And uh if they're gonna reach out, I guess they already have reached out for a uh a ceasefire uh to stop the violence in Iraq.
This is I guarantee you this is not our idea.
Is that I mean, we're not the ones offering the ceasefire.
We're gonna see if they want to, because apparently some signals have been sent from the bad guys that uh that is what they want to do.
Now, here's here's Major Garrett's uh soundbite.
This is from uh yesterday afternoon special report, Britt Hume last night, six o'clock.
Uh Major Garrett reporting on immigration, President Bush versus Rush, which I don't think it was.
And I know a lot of people took it personally.
I don't think the president had anybody personally in mind when he made his comments about conservatives not understanding what's going on here and being fed a bunch of emotion not based in facts.
Uh the fact of the matter is uh it's it's the you know it's it's it's the pro-immigration bill bunch that will not debate this on facts.
They can't win on facts.
They can't win on the details of the bill, and I'm gonna debate it in that regard and in in the in the process.
That's why they wanted to hustle this through without all the extracurricular politics under the cover of darkness.
So uh anyway, his report includes audio from uh from me from President Bush and Tony Snow.
Rush Limbaugh, Mandarin of Conservative Talk Radio said the immigration reform debate had broken the back of the president's loyalist base.
But there are people who are saying, I've had it.
I I'm I'm through I'm through defending the guy.
This is this is the last draw because he's attacking me here.
Bush appears to have infuriated conservative talk radio listeners when he said this yesterday, defending comprehensive immigration reform.
If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.
You can use it to frighten people.
The president also accused critics of throwing around generalities like amnesty to intensify political opposition.
If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill.
It's not an amnesty bill.
That's empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our fellow citizens.
At the White House spokesman Tony Snow denied the president was trying to demonize GOP immigration reform critics.
He believes that finding a solution is what's right for America.
And no, there was no attempt to try to be cute.
The invited politicians at the event were Republicans.
The President is the leader of the Republican Party.
He is not picking a fight with Republicans.
Limbaugh's listeners rendered just the opposite verdict.
But this criticism of his base is going to be problematic for him because the uh the left is going to keep up their incessant harping on the on Iraq, and he needs people to support him on this.
He needs to have a base of support that will not waver.
Yes, that's the point that I made yesterday that that's the that's the sad thing about this is that uh he's gonna continue to need support for whatever uh policy in Iraq uh continues to prevail.
Uh and and this, you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you, folks, uh it's been a long time since I have seen, and this is a good thing, by the way.
It's been a long time since I have seen such a divide between the elected elite political class and the average, common ordinary American, and you common average ordinary Americans know who you are.
And I think it's good.
I think it's good that the people of this country understand just how insulated and removed from daily aspects of life some of these people are in terms of understanding what it is that your life is like on a daily basis.
Uh and this this is this is gonna lead to um to to good things down the road eventually.
Uh it's uh the everything you might look in the middle of things that you think are bad or tragic or horrible, but there's always good in everything that happens if you look for it.
And I don't think we're gonna have to look very hard for this uh for the good that's occurring in in uh in in this divide.
Uh this will eventually, if it keeps up and that the emotional level remains peaked, and I think it uh will because it's uh the emotional reservoir is nowhere near running dry on this.
Uh elected officials are eventually going to have to come around quick on something at some point, usually as we near uh election time, and people are going to be distrustful of that too.
Because if they if they wait that long to come around and be responsive on this, it's gonna be too late.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Drive by media is not talking about this either, ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, essentially admitted she wants to replace American society.
It is profound what she is admitting to out there.
And we've got a new little update theme song that we want to share with you before we get into Hillary news.
Take off on the Tammy Wynette tune stood by my man here.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
After all, ladies and gentlemen, she did say that there are things worse than infidelity.
She actually said this.
This is a quote.
It's time to replace American society.
Have you noticed the way Mrs. Clinton dressing lately?
She's wearing these Mao suits.
She looks like Chairman Mao out there.
She's wearing these jackets with the Mao collar.
So we call her Chairman Hillary here, the smartest woman in the world.
She says she's she she made it abundantly clear that we have to replace the on your own society, which is the George Bush model with her new model, uh, we're all in it together society.
Because she says fairness doesn't just happen.
It requires the right governmental policies in order for fairness.
And see, fairness is one of these elusive concepts anyway, but to liberals, fairness is equality of outcomes.
They are obsessed with equality.
They are obsessed with everybody being the same.
Boys and girls are not different.
Um about making sure that everybody, every religion is the same, every uh cultural custom is the same.
None is better than the other, none is worse than the other, because they just will not make such judgments.
And so when Mrs. Clinton starts talking about fairness, that's a code word for government's gonna come in, and we're gonna legislate and mandate equality of outcomes.
Now, but what does it mean to you in real terms?
Well, the great leader, Chairman Hillary assures us that the new society, this uh this this we're all in it together society means prosperity To all.
Every American will get affordable health insurance, bestowed by the same big government types who created the problems that we have now.
Corporations will be punished.
And she's making no secret of this.
This is not the first time she said this.
She says that there will be no more special breaks.
Oil companies are going to be punished the most.
Oil companies will be required to invest in technologies that she and government deem appropriate, or they will face higher taxes.
Corporate CEOs will have their paychecks monitored by the public, and they will be open to public challenge.
This is stunning admissions that she's making.
And I tell you what, the fact that the drive-bys are not pumping it up and making a big deal out of it, is because they know how damaging this could be if it were given wide play.
Some up there, I'm sure, would love to celebrate this and ring the ring the bells, but they don't dare.
My gosh, this stuff hasn't been proposed ever in this country in such open, blatant terms.
It goes on and on and on about how this is just such an unfair society.
This on your own business.
That leads to inequality.
It leads to some having more than others, and the reason some get more than others is that the people who have more steal from the others, and she's not fair.
It just isn't right.
So what she favors is collectivism.
And if you study collectivism, communism, socialism, wherever it is, and has been around the world, you will find a trail of human misery, economic collapse, and failure in its wake.
But she says the government is uh can be the great equalizer, and it can't.
I asked this question again in less than 200 years.
The United States of America has surpassed every population group, every other country, every system of government on earth by unlocking one thing, and that is the vast potential of individual effort encouraged by freedom.
How anybody can look at this country and want to destroy it and tear it down or remake its society is beyond most people's grasp.
Why would they want to destroy this?
You have to understand there are people that do, and that's in large part what the immigration debate represents and the immigration bill represents for the American left.
They are they're all about tearing down the institutions of this country that have made it great, that have defined it and have made us unique in just over 200 short years compared to thousands and thousands of years for many other countries.
Tear it down, just not fair.
They want to control it.
They want to own it.
They want to remake it in their image.
So that why do you think they admire Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?
It's it's it's it's not because what is there to admire about Cuba?
Nothing unless you are jealous of the power that Castro has and that and jealous of the power that Chavez.
And that's what it is that drives them.
Uh I'll tell you, folks, uh, you own all by yourself the greatness of this country, and it doesn't need replacing by somebody who wishes to replicate failure and misery, the world is known for too long.
Back in a moment.
America's real anchor man sitting here behind a golden EIB microphone, the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Mrs. Clinton wants to remake American society.
Remember, it wasn't long ago, a few years ago, San Francisco, Mrs. Clinton said, we're going to have to take more from you to give it to the common good.
Remember her husband Bill Clinton, Buffalo said, I think I might give you a tax cut, but I don't I'm not, I don't trust why you'd spend it.
I think we spend it better than what you would.
People have been very open and bold about what their intentions are, just as enemies in Al-Qaeda have been.
And yet people somehow don't have it registered.
So I'm going to try to take care of that.
Keep this in mind.
We have to take more from you to give it to the common good.
We are going to have shared prosperity.
Get that and keep it in mind with his next story, also AP.
Senator Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she followed all Senate rules when she accepted rides on a private jet from a longtime benefactor.
She followed, oh, yeah, everybody does it.
No big deal, old news.
Whatever I've done, I've complied with Senate rules of the time.
That's the way every senator operates.
Oh, everybody does it, excuse.
Again, she said this.
Everybody lies about sex.
Whatever the Clintons do, everybody does it, and that's the excuse.
Now, the travel and consulting fees paid to Clinton's husband have come to light recently in a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta.
A Clinton contributor and chief executive of the data company Info USA.
The lawsuit by the company shareholders accuses Gupta of excessively spending millions of dollars, including $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons, but that's not the half of it.
What did this company do?
It collected private data on elderly and gave it to people so they could exploit them.
I mean, the Gupta's company took advantage of the elderly, gave the database away, and this is this is a firm that's flying to Clintons around on his jet and contributing $900,000 in other forms of travel.
Senator Clinton, who complained about corporate America's largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events on Wednesday, said she didn't believe that her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private flights.
In line with Senate rules, then in effect, Clinton's campaign has said she reimbursed Gupta at the cost of a first-class flight, typically a significant discount off the difference.
Try kind of plane she's traveling around on, try five, six thousand dollars an hour versus a first class ticket of twelve hundred bucks for her flights.
It is a um it is a it it's a stark difference.
I know these are Senate rules, but we need leadership here.
Mrs. Clinton once again setting things up for everybody else while exempting herself.
She thinks executive pay ought to be examined, and that the public ought to have veto rights over executive pay.
She's worried about the largesse of American corporations, uh, and uh is out there just playing this class envy card.
Uh and she said, Well, they know those were the rules.
You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy.
Uh Clinton struck several populous notes Wednesday in a speech at a union hall in a town hall appearance at a North Las Vegas Haskrule with large number of minority and low-income students.
And then she made light of her own personal wealth.
And she actually said this.
You know, these people cannot stop bragging about their wealth.
She said, I know a lot of rich people.
My husband and I never had any money.
Now all of a sudden, we're rich.
I have nothing against rich people, but what made America great is the American middle class.
She won her loudest applause with her promise to end the war in Iraq.
All right, so here's a woman who wants to take everything you've got above what everybody else has and give it to everybody else.
Is she going to take away from her?
She's going to spend her own money to fly herself around.
Why can't you go charter jets yourself, Mrs. Clinton?
You got all this money, you just said you're rich.
We're rich.
My husband and I never had any money now.
All of a sudden we're rich, as though just an accident.
They woke up one day, we're rich.
Well, they're going to spend it on themselves.
No, they're going to use other people's money to get themselves around because they're hoarding what they have.
They're into the preservation of principle mode.
They're not going to spend any of their money, but boy, they're going to take yours.
So she will not live her life the way she is demanding and promising that everybody else will win uh will live theirs.
The Brecht girl is back.
Oh, but there's a great story.
You know, this sunken treasure they found out there of this this uh this this hedge fund that the that the Brett girl joined to learn about prov poverty.
His booty is threatened here because he's got a 10% take in the in the uh in the treasure.
And the treasure's about $500 million.
He goes in his hedge fund to learn about poverty.
The one he learned one thing he learned about poverty is avoid it.
So he's he's not a Spain is suing the hedge fund uh rights to the sunken treasure.
Now, a lawsuit is a mating call to John Edwards.
This ought to be right up his right up its alley.
So people are making claims on on his money.
But it was just last week.
I think it was just last week.
We had a call on this program from a man, very nice guy, but it was exceedingly frustrating for me, your host, because he wanted to say, and he did say that there is no free market in oil and gasoline, that all of the oil companies own the product from the moment it's discovered in the ground until it's brought out and refined and put in your gas tank.
I say, you saying that there's price fixed.
Well, price fixing, but it's not a free market in gasoline.
I spent probably twenty minutes after that call explaining the complexities of the oil business.
The largest oil companies in the world, and uh they four of the top five are not even American.
The largest oil company in the world is Saudi Arabia's Aramco, and then you have number five is uh Exxon Mobile, with three percent of the world's oil as market share.
And and and in the meantime, the Breck girl says that a wave of mergers in the oil industry should be investigated by the Justice Department to see what impact they've had on soaring gasoline prices.
During a planned campaign stop yesterday, or today, actually, Silicon Valley, Edwards planned to berate the oil industry for anti-competitive actions and outline an energy plan that he says would reduce oil imports and get us on a path to be virtually petroleum-free within a generation.
It's not possible.
That is irresponsible to tell anybody we're gonna be per virtually petroleum free in twenty-five years.
It's not possible, folks.
It is not, and anybody who tried to bring that about is dangerous.
It is simply impossible.
This is pure populist rhetoric during rising gas prices, and is designed to prey on people's whose uh people whose knowledge of uh of economics in general is woeful uh or inept.
Uh all of these mergers of these companies has not affected the price of gasoline.
There are too many I don't want to go through it again.
There are factors we can't even calculate that end up uh uh determining the price of gasoline.
And one of the biggest factors in the price of gasoline, and this this came up yesterday on today's show with Matt Wauer.
He had to shell oil.
Uh conaco shell uh CEO.
And uh and Lauer said, Well, you know, a year ago we had you on here, and you said that uh price of gasoline is tied to the barrel price of oil.
And if that goes down, the gasoline price will go down.
Well, oil's ten bucks a barrel cheaper this year, and a gas price is higher.
How could that be?
Uh normally it's true, but uh because 60% of the price of gasoline is related to the price of oil.
But Matt, uh demand is skyrocketing.
Demand is and Lauer picked up on it, said, yes, it's our fault.
We are addicted to gasoline.
Which also set me off yesterday because it's impossible to be addicted to gas.
Gasoline's food.
It is not an addiction.
People cannot do with less of it.
It's not something that people use that they don't need.
It's not a recreational uh commodity uh like is associated with uh other things that people are addicted to.
It is the fuel of our democracy.
It's the it's the it's the fuel of the engine of freedom.
And that's why we're not gonna be petroleum-free in 25 years.
John Edwards, every time I listen to this man speak, I I folks, I'm I'm uh this is really unkind to say, but I have never gotten, I have never understood what it is the hype and and the so the brilliance of all these Democrats.
Ted Kennedy never been right about anything.
He'd been proven wrong since 19 well for 43 years on immigration.
Everything he's done has been proven wrong.
In the Great Society, all these social welfare programs, what they were going to cost, the results we were going to get, all the problems are going to solve.
Nothing has ever worked out the way they said.
Mrs. Clinton botched everything she tried when she was first lady.
Nothing worked out the way she said.
Smartest woman in the world.
John Edwards, brilliant, brilliant trial lawyer.
The the the IQ of a pencil eraser.
The quotes in this oil story are just beyond belief.
You remember John Edwards.
And I guess the is either a debate or it was a Democrat National Convention 2004, where he says if John Kerry is elected that Christopher Reeve will walk again.
I'm going to tell you something.
The oil-free in 25 years.
I'm still in a state of stunned disbelief over the absolute irresponsibility and idiocy of this.
Nobody will join him in this quest.
It isn't possible.
He will be bald before we stop using oil.
All right, to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Michael in Manhattan, Kansas.
Great to have you as you're up first.
First call every day sets a tone for all the other callers.
It's an awesome responsibility.
Oh my, I'm not sure I can handle it, right?
I'm sure you can.
That's why you're first.
All right.
Well, hey, I was calling about uh Chairman Hillary and what's going to happen to us average guys that uh make less than thirty thousand dollars a year out here, and if she gets her way in this uh new society she's wanting to push forward.
Well, here's the the the danger about this is uh uh is is two things really.
She's uh actively talking about doing it.
Uh and it'll be interesting to see what kind of support she gets on it.
And it's that's actually not true because they're not making a big deal about this.
This is one of these Hillary stories that's being buried.
Uh the next thing is there's an 80% chance this woman is going to be elected the next president of the United States.
As we sit here today, there is an 80% chance that she's the next president.
You totally disagree with that, Snertley.
Seventy 77.
Well, uh no, I'm not gonna give up.
Thompson's not in yet.
Thompson gets in, well, I'll recalculate, but no, the the I'm not even basing it on any of the Republican candidates right now.
And this is a historical thing.
When's the last time that uh aside from George W. Bush winning the third term after Reagan's two, when's the last time a party's held the White House for three terms other than FDR?
You get that historical aspect, but uh uh there are other factors.
I don't detailed them on previous broadcasts, don't need to detail them again here.
The fact is there's an eighty percent chance she's going to be the next president.
As we sit here today, not anything can change tomorrow that upset this uh Apple cart.
So if she really tries to do this, uh you know, this is not inconsequential.
You know, words mean things.
She's been saying this stuff since she was first lady.
She's been saying this is what her vision of the ideal society is.
It's it's not it's not enough to sit there and say, oh, that'll never happen.
It will if people don't shape up uh and pay attention and understand that it's uh uh it well, she'll try.
I don't know whether she could succeed in pulling it off, but you have to understand you know the Soviets.
The Soviets always had these five-year plans and these ten-year plans, and they never ever admitted failure.
It just if if they took two steps forward and had to take a step back, they would do it.
They didn't, they didn't actually put uh limits or uh uh time limits on when they had to get this done, or if they didn't, it'd be a failure.
They never gave up.
And the way it's it's the way liberals are.
That's why they have to constantly be battled, is why they have to constantly be defeated.
They don't give up.
They'd love to be able to get all this done tomorrow.
He'll go Chavez be vice president.
Uh they can't get it done tomorrow, but they'll do it.
Uh uh take as long as they as they need to to get it done.
And this is so it requires constant vigilance and taking this stuff seriously.
Look, folks, I'm not making it up.
I'm not coming here and saying, I know this woman.
I know what she's really thinking.
She's telling us.
It's just like what bin Laden is telling us, and like Zawahiri is telling us.
Uh it's up to us to listen to this stuff.
I know you are.
I'm I'm I'm actually talking about the uh American people beyond the boundaries of this program.
Tip City, Ohio.
This is Brenda Brenda.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
I hope you're having a wonderful day.
Yeah, we are.
Um it's it sent shivers down my spine to hear you talk about what Hillary wants to do because the American left, the average person that would vote for something like that, it's scary because most of the world that came into power and ran a society like she's talking about, i.e., Cuba, they did it through through force.
And we have enough American people that would actually vote her into office to do that.
That's scary.
Yeah, it's true.
And why do you think this is?
It's because the 50-year effort at exploiting class envy that the this is a great example.
They 50, they don't stop.
Whether they lose elections with it or not, they don't stop.
They keep using class envy, resentment, uh, blaming tax cuts on the rich for every malady that everybody else has.
And human nature is undeniable.
It is what it is.
And a lot of people have the syndrome uh the grass is always greener, uh keeping up with the Joneses.
Um it's just a fact of life and human nature that uh people look at others who have more and get envious and jealous.
And one some people do say, Why you're how come they have all that and I don't?
Well, I am just as good as they are.
It's not fair.
If somebody comes along and says, don't worry, I'll take it away from them.
All right.
I want to feel better because I want to see those people get punished.
We all love the car crash.
We all, you know, our our our culture these days uh loves to build people up and then tear them down.
And we love it when people get torn down.
We love it when people get theirs.
Uh and uh the left has been promulgating this kind of stuff for decades and decades, and they've been they've been uh fueling this resentment.
So, yeah, you're right, there are a certain number of Americans.
Uh my gosh, if they can cheer Hugo Chavez shutting down an opposition TV station, if they can cheer the United States losing the war on terror and losing in Iraq, if they can cheer this, they you don't think they'll have uh an easier time cheering the rich in this country, the so-called rich getting theirs?
I always tell people I've had calls from people who think, I think this is a good idea.
There's CEOs are making way too much money.
Oh, companies see the profits, give the profits back, lower the price.
They could they could eliminate their profit for one year and it would matter a nickel to the gallon of gas that they sell for a year.
It's it's it's it doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis.
And yet people have called here and said, I think that that that would be good.
I I CEOs make too much money.
It's not fair.
Uh line workers aren't making any.
Let me ask you a question.
Let's say that the CEO's salaries get cut.
By the way, they will just find a way to bonus them with stock options or whatever.
They're not going to lose money, folks.
They're not gonna, it's not gonna end up happening that way.
But in the meantime, let's say that uh your neighbor makes more than you do, he gets a tax increase and you don't.
So he has less money than he had.
Is your life any better?
Is your economic circumstance improved at all by somebody else suffering economic hardship?
It doesn't matter, heal of beans, but people Hillary talks to and appeals to have been conditioned because they're fomenting out this hate and rage to be made happy when others share their misery.
And that's what she's trying to do.
We'll be back.
What do you think this headline is about?
▲
Export Selection